years -- first it was $10 billion, then it grew to 36 billion dollars. congress pump the brakes. initially when they came out with nextgen, another $15 billion, that kept on growing as well. we are spending a billion dollars every year, which sounds crazy. sounds like pocket change that you throw around. but i don't want to give the impression that those billions were not helping or were wasted. those billions is >> people take you live to a series of discussions. you are watching live coverage on c-span. >> executive director of the institute. before we begin i want to draw your attention to the screen. there are a couple of qr codes on the screen on the next slide. right on top on the top right,

download the uber app -- hoover app. it allows you to connect with attendees, speakers, create networking groups and do more to get the most out of the conference. for a quick snapshot of the agenda, there's an agenda qr code we would like you to reference. to begin the conference i would like to invite the founder of the institute. dr. guida is a faculty cochair and director of the division of infectious diseases at the johns hopkins school of medicine. he's focused on advancing collaborations between the united states and india and creating a network that brings together policymakers, academics, and changemakers. many are in the room today. please, and welcoming dr. gupta to the states. [applause]

-- to the stage. [applause] dr. gupta: what a pleasure. i'm thrilled to be here. it is a dream come true. i would like to acknowledge the incredible team that's helped put this incredible event together. i will say more about them. it takes a village to bring all the amazing speakers, thought leaders. we have student volunteers. we have faculty and staff. i want to acknowledge all of them before we begin. i want to see a few things about the fact we are at a moment in time where there is a lot going on in the world. there's a lot of uncertainty. it's also a geopolitically intense time as well. we must take pause in that. they are people impacted across the globe and obviously in parts

of south asia. our thoughts are with everyone impacted, whether you are in one part of the world or another. even in our own country we are facing new challenges. we are a group that experienced a lot of challenges over time. we always find a way to be resilient and find a way forward. i'm happy to have a platform like this such as the india institute to be a place we can come together and play a small role in crossing ideas, having dialogue, having meaningful stakeholders come together and advance cooperation and partnerships to tackle many interesting ideas and issues through the next day and a half. we have an incredible lineup of speakers. over 80 people who have agreed to come and speak on panels and get keynotes in the next day and a half. we expect this to be a rich and rewarding set of conversations. i want to say a special thanks

to the speaker faculty chairs who helped organize several panels. i will call out joshua white, gg grunwald, sarah bennett, shri, neil solomon, and each one of them are faculty champions who helped us convene the panels for the next day and a half. let's give them a quick round of applause. [applause] we have an incredible larger faculty steering committee that helps guide the indian institute, whose mission is to create a superhighway for communication, collaboration and coming up with bright ideas for addressing a host of interesting ideas and problems. i would be amiss if i did not take the time to thank incredible committee who have been working day and night.

you just heard from kunal paul, executive director of the india institute. along with our country director in india from delhi, they will hopefully join me on stage. our communications, the program manager. beth romanski in our many student volunteers. we have undergraduate, graduate, arts and sciences, the business school, engineering, medicine, public health, nursing, together to help volunteer their time today and tomorrow. i'm sure you met them when you checked in. we are very grateful for the nexus awards. get to know where the university provided us to really facilitate

these convening's. we were the recipient in one. this is the bloomberg center in washington, d.c., at the former space of the museum and a few blocks from the capitol. it's a place for incredible dialogue. we are thankful. we were thrilled we co-convened this event with india asked for spora. we have a special event partner, the america india foundation and several media partners. the south asian times, american bazaar, india broad, south asian harold, and we are actually going to be live on c-span1. i have never been on c-span1 so i'm excited to have us all be on c-span1. thank you, c-span. we have three main panel tracks. challenges in health care and noncommunicable diseases,

infectious diseases and palatable care, economic development and the global impact of women. these are three main panel tracks. i like to quote gandhi. gandhi said the future depends on what we do in the present. this conference and the partnerships are a testament to that. we moved to our first plenary panel. united states stands at a pivotal moment in history as two of the world largest democracies, there collaboration spans research, business, policy, and global security among many other things. the session will explore how the relationship is evolving and what strategic priorities and opportunities lay ahead how institutions, private enterprise and civil society can deepen the critical partnership. i would like to first welcome our session chair who is the executive director of indiasp

ora. he's a seasoned voice in international affairs and the diaspora engagement. 20 camera three very distinguished beakers. ambassador arun sign from the cowen group and the former indian ambassador to the united states. [applause] this samona guha, former senior director of south asia at the u.s. national security council. [applause] last, miss nisha biswal, former deputy ceo at the u.s. international development finance corporation and senior at the asia group. please join me in welcoming the esteemed panelists and session chair to the stage. we look forward to the discussion.

>> hello. thank you, amita. it is a pleasure and privilege for us to partner with johns hopkins university and the institute for this inaugural u.s. india conference. their response and turnout has been overwhelming and such a pleasure to work with the entire team and i feel about 10 feet tall. i'm sitting next to three eminent people who are such distinguished experts in their fields. as i have gotten to engage with them and know them over the years, wonderful people to interact with. it's a delight for me to be moderating this particular panel. i know their bios have been read out so i will not repeat that. i will get straight to the

topics at hand, the topics for the conversation today. the panel is about u.s.-india relations. let me address something that is on all our minds. , the conflict between india and pakistan right now. viewed through the lens of the americans, there have been statements made by senior american officials about the conflict. president trump has made supportive statements towards india. secretary rubio has had numerous conversations with -- the speaker of the house made some comments about the conflict as well. i believe just yesterday vice president vance said, "it's none of our business." given the seemingly disparate

comments from the senior officials in the administration, i want to pose a question to my distinguished panelists about how they view u.s. engagement or lack thereof in the current conflict. we will proceed to your left. >> thanks. just trying to understand what is playing out, clearly the response from india is on account of a major terrorist incident that took place. pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism for more than four decades. since the 1980's. you had major terror incidents from time to time. there was the attack on the indian parliament in 2001. there was a mobilization of indian forces after that. there was an attack in mumbai in 2008 which went on for four

days. 10 people came across from pakistan and overseas. more than 160 were killed. there was an attack in 2019. 14 dead soldiers. now an attack with 26 civilians killed in that. globally, it has been signaled there is zero tolerance for terrorism. the u.s. reacted in a certain way after 9/11. you have seen the reaction in israel after the attack of october 2023. there is zero tolerance for terrorism. the reaction is a response to that. as far as the international responses are concerned, i think as i see it from outside the government and watching the comments out of india is that the indian expectation would be that people stand with india as

it deals with the challenge of terrorism. india will deal with issues it faces on its own. based on its own strengths. india has opposed any third-party intervention on india's issues with other countries. it would like to handle it on its own. that is the broad indian approach. >> when speaking about the u.s. reaction i would like to add we have seen secretary of state marco rubio reachout to both indian external affairs and esther and the pakistani prime minister to encourage direct dialogue between the two countries and encourage de-escalation. that is very consistent with the u.s. position in the past when these incidents have unfortunately taken place. >> thanks again for inviting me

to this wonderful conference and for the collaboration between indiaspora and johns hopkins. the only think i would add to what has been said, it's concerning any time there is kinetic activity along the india-cap pakistan front and the u.s. said that it supports the right of india to defend itself against terrorism. what perhaps the vice president's comments can be taken in the context of is you have a president who kind of grand on the fact that he was going to keep the united states out of wars. this is an indication of saying the united states is not getting dragged into a conflict and

making that clear to the public. it has been long the contention of india that any issues between india and pakistan need to be resolved bilaterally between the two countries. it objects to international or third-party mediation. this was a shorthand way of indicating the u.s. is not looking to mediate between the two countries. sanjeev: as we were all discussing in the green room for we cannot, we wanted to make sure we address the elephant in the room but not let it suck the oxygen out of the room, because this is a u.s.-india panel. it's not about india and pakistan. there are multiple issues on which the u.s. and india talk to each other. we will address several of those now in the remaining time of our panel and perhaps open up to the audience if we have time.

let's talk about the other big elephant in the room right now, which is great. -- trade. probably everybody in the room knows about the trade dynamics between the u.s. and india now. active negotiations. lots of back-and-forth comments, most of which have been positive by a large from both sides. it appears that india is doing more than what it previously has done to accommodate president trumps'demands -- trump's demands on trade but india will have their own demands too. given the situation now, is a trade accord imminent? what will be broadly the terms of that kind of accord? what sectors impacted? any thoughts about that? amb. singh: if you see the joint statement issued in february after the indian prime minister

visited the white house, the first foreign leader invited to the white house, on trade two things sort of i noticed. that the two are committed to do a multisector free-trade agreement. to the first trench by the fall. they are committed to taking the trade from the current level of $200 billion to $500 billion by 2030. following that, there's been intense engagement between the two sides on trade negotiations. the indian commerce minister was here. the chief indian negotiator was here. they had detailed discussions on issues. they are committed to doing both virtual and in-person discussions. more ministry level meetings are likely soon. he saw the u.s. treasury secretary saying that indian is among the countries that the u.s. will trade -- among the

first ones that it will be done. president trump said india is moving fast on the trade negotiations. pete navarro said india is moving at trump speed on these negotiations. there is a determined effort by the two sides to see it done, because as you know, president trump should be going to india in the fall for a summit scheduled to be held. there are no dates. he will be useful to have something done before that. linked to that is the fact that in the global -- globalization of trade, india feels it lost out. gained in services but manufacturing was sucked away by china which has 22% of global manufacturing and 18% of global gdp. the effort is to plug into this phase of reordering of supply chains that is happening.

take advantage of this restructuring so that manufacturing in india can happen again and india can build new partnerships. that is the effort. if you saw a couple of days ago, india and u.k. finalized a free-trade agreement, which is a major indication. that had been under negotiation for three years. now they have finalized it. from reports that come out, 99% of the tariffs have been reduced on imports from india. they are talking about professional services and mobility and doing something very similar to the agreement and the u.s. these are very forward-looking major breakthroughs that have happened. it indicates india is prepared to do trade agreements way beyond its approaches in the past. that is a positive indicator of where the india-u.s. discussions are held. sanjeev: the american attitude

on trade is crating a large impetus among other countries to forge agreements between each other. i guess the india-u.k. -- the rapidity it was resolved and finalized is when a sample of that. as i move to sumona and nisha, supply chains, i read that google which had moved a lot of it's smartphone manufacturing from china to vietnam is now moving it from vietnam to india. i guess that is one example of the differential tariffs the trump administration is imposing on various countries. that leads to a question. if one thinks about china plus one, if one is a corporate ceo thinking about supply chain and a china plus one strategy, is india will placed to be the plus

one? amb. singh: these are questions that i think u.s. industry is certainly contemplating and examining possibilities. it is not just google that has moved operations into india in recent years. you have other major technology companies doing that. there might not be a one-size-fits-all. we are in a period where both sides are ready to perhaps consider new questions, new incentives, new modes of cooperation. perhaps new investment incentives on the part of india. perhaps on the part of american industry a willingness to look broader and do the negotiations needed. of course, all of this gets wrapped into the very robust conversation that is happening on technology

cooperation in general. we talked about the joint statement between prime minister modi and president trump in february. that refers to a range of initiatives for technology cooperation that encompasses the supply chain question you were thinking about. that also encompasses several other issues related to cutting-edge technologies. we can come back to that if you want. i do think that when you talk about supply chain's, you now have a very serious and very high level government to government discussion that gives a green light, new impetus for industry to explore new modes of cooperation. nisha: i think what i would add to what they have said, on the china plus one, largely depends on what the ecosystem and u.s.

tariff policies. if you're in a world where there are tariffs everywhere, i think, needs are going to double down on cost efficiency. right now you can't really beat china on cost efficiency. the extent to which you start having negotiated reductions and bilateral agreements, it creates opportunity for perhaps a shift in manufacturing. the extent to which the u.s. and india get a pta negotiated and that india has concluded agreements with other major markets that allow it to have preferential access. india becomes more attractive and the cost issue becomes more manageable. so, a lot of this -- companies are looking to see where things go before they make decisions

about whether or not they are shifting supply chains. google -- i think apple shifted iphone manufacturing increasingly for india for the u.s. market. you will see those kinds of shifts. full-scale shifts are going to, you know, they take a lot of time and thought and planning. companies are starting to think about what their strategy is going to look like. they are trying to predict what that landscape is going to look like. they are still not quite enough certainty about where the administration is going on this tariff policy but they are seeing glimmers as you see negotiations get underway. that will inform decisions about changes to supply chains. sanjeev: you talked about technology so i want to move the conversation in that direction.

before i do that, i want to keep this conversation an informal -- conversational and informal. don't let it be me guiding and you respond. if you have responses to each other, feel free to engage. i'm sure our friends in the audience would derive benefit from that. on technology, under the biden administration there was a big announcement. it was and olive government initiative headed by the -- all of government initiative headed by advisors on both sides involving various cabinet agencies and departments. i know there's going to be another panel about this later this afternoon about trust. the question i have for you is, is it just a new model? i would love your views on it. it is more than that. if you look at the joint statement that was released by

the two governments after prime minister modi came to america recently, it seemed to expand on what trust and what isa set out to do. do you have a different point of view? amb. singh: at a time when the u.s. was imposing technology restrictions in partnership with other countries. here was a signal the national security advisor's of the two countries were stating on national security we believe we should partner on emerging technologies. that was a major political message. identifying artificial intelligence, quantum, cyber, biotech, semiconductors, defense space, a whole range of technologies everybody knowledged are completely going to transform the way we live and

work. the other thought behind that was that true development of technology would lead to a framework or production sharing. some to be done in the u.s. and some to be done in india. look at doing sectoral trade facilities arrangement to deepen the partnership, especially if you want to take a level of billions of dollars. it was a big breakthrough. it is the framing and projection that led to six u.s. companies amounting investment in indian semiconductors. 80% technology transfer for engines. that level of technology transfer was not authorized for any other partner, including any other nato partners. you saw cooperation in space that has not happened. this month, if all goes well, an astronaut will be launching into space on board spacex going to

the international space station in partnership with nasa and joint research. very soon nasa is through, they $1.5 billion satellite will be launched. there's an effort to bring the private sector for space for the u.s. and india together to do more work together. these are the things. given that framing, when i look at trust for my mind and i'm sure they will have more dad to that, a couple of things emerged. one, now the new administration has ownership for that process. therefore, they will be coming to advance in many of these areas. there is a commitment to further intensify the technology partnership in these related areas. also ease the processes related to allowing technology

partnerships. the export control regulations need to be addressed. they can be very onerous for u.s. partners. while technology partnerships are encouraged, what do you do to deal with the regulations? it's an important area. that started this strategy trade dialogue to see how to ease some of the processes. that is something that needs to be done even more. i would say yes is a plus. amb. singh: i will add -- sumona: i will add a little bit. when i said it was conceived, announced in may of 2022, launched by the respective national security advisers in january of 2023. before that, i was in the biden white house.

it was not a foregone conclusion that it would be led by the national security advisors. we thought about whether it could be run out of a department or agency. we thought about the various topics that would fall under the dialogue. most of all, the objective to really advance the technology partnership in multiple ways across multiple areas. the decision was taken. the proposal was made to do it at the level of the national security advisors. i am pleased to see that will continue. i think that signifies that leaders will pay attention to the technology partnership. i think it will help activate our respective systems as needed to achieve results. i think it's a very positive development for the u.s.-india relationship. sanjeev: nisha, this is for any of you on the technology topic. any thoughts about ai and llm's

developed in cooperation between the countries? nisha: that's a really excellent question. i was in new delhi recently at the global technology summit hosted by carnegie and mea. a lot of conversations about the impact of deepseek and the extent to which deepseek is being utilized increasingly by businesses across india. what are the applications of that. you know, the challenge to both india and the united states is to what extent can u.s.-india collaboration create alternatives that are cost-effective and are providing the capabilities and deficiencies -- efficiencies that are necessary?

some of the points that i thought were incredibly insightful that i heard around the conference, government has to be an enabler of technology and not necessarily always the regulator. in india, there's an overregulation that inhibits innovation. particularly in the nascent stages you really need to be in the what can you do to invest and enable and allow innovation to scale rapidly before you get your hooks on what we do to regulate against negative impacts. otherwise innovation will never get off the ground. amb. singh: since you encouraged us to be conversational, can i

just make two points in response to what they said? when you go to bangalore, you realize there is deep integration between the tech ecosystem of bangalore and silicon valley in artificial intelligence. core technologies are with u.s. companies and large land which models. -- language models. there is application happening in india using those technologies. the u.s. companies have heard them say by the work on applications they learned how to advance their technologies further. the problems that are there, the opportunities that are there. both are gaining from that. that is something we have to keep in mind. second thing, one thing in the framework which is continuing trust is this not just a government to government initiative. there is a deliberate effort to

involve the private sector and academia in the process. especially in the u.s., it's at the level of universities. that part is critical. when the conversations were going on, and i will cite this example, if you just look at quantum technologies, from what one hears, universities do not know what to teach that will be relevant to industry. many of the leading u.s. companies are funding companies in india to do the teaching of quantum. people are trained who would be available for them later as expand. this is an opportunity for conversation between industry on both sides. and universities in both sites. how do you work together to develop this that will be relevant to industry related to quantum technologies and will deepen the partnership between the u.s. and india. thus the broad approach. there should be dialogue at the

level of government and industry and all three working together. since these are critical technologies, academia and business need signals from the government they are encouraging cooperation in this area and will not clampdown. sanjeev: that goes to what nisha was saying. indiaspora held a global ai summit inrecently held a globalt in the uae and we talked about ai collaboration between the uae and india, uae and united states, and to some extent try laterally as well. it was quite clear that the uae is going full steam ahead on ai as far as their own domestic regulations are concerned, but also in terms of their investments in the american ai market. of course, i understand india doesn't have a sovereign wealth fund and so forth like the uae does, so in india the equation is a little different.

you cannot announce tomorrow that you are going to invest 100 billion dollars in stargate kind of thing, which the uae has done. i have no hesitation in revealing my biases when i say that i do hope that the cooperation between india and the united states on ai does deepen as we move forward. based on comments here we think it will. sumona: i think you can expect the cooperation to deepen. you have seen high-level signals again coming out of the february visit, prime minister modi and the statement that resulted from his visit with president trump, that the u.s. and india have agreed to work on an ai roadmap to really flesh out areas of cooperation, as arun said, inherently involve the private sector and academia. one question the two sides are probably in conversation about will need to be the ai diffusion rule.

how far can the two sides go to make india a home for critical ai infrastructure. sanjeev i do want to turn the conversation to another topic that i think is extremely germane to where we are today, which is education. i know that we have limited time left, so after this i will try to open it up to the audience if i can. on education, this conference itself is an example of u.s.-india collaboration on indication -- education, the johns hopkins university gupta-klinsky india institute. so many universities in america trying to collaborate with educational institutions in india. the reverse is also true, reverse direction. given that in the past, there has been skepticism about deepening cooperation in the education space, do you see

education corporation deepening at a level that is perhaps just below the ivy leagues and the top-tier schools that are household names all across india and america? >> i think this is a real gem of an opportunity right now. india should be thinking about the fact that if indeed there is going to be a rethinking, restructuring of education, nexus between government and education in the united states, does that create an opportunity for india to become perhaps a magnet, hub on higher education? can you draw investment? u.s. universities are very interested in opportunities to maybe create satellite campuses, create collaborations, create some kinds of joint initiatives, joint ventures with india.

india will need to figure out, again, how it gets out of its own way in attracting that. i think you will need to look at tax issues, regulatory issues, all kinds of things in india that inhibits collaboration. but if those can be moved aside, then as u.s. universities grapple with perhaps cuts in funding, perhaps cuts in foreign student enrollment, they are looking at where they turn. i think you are hearing europeans, australians, canadians and others vye for talent and investment on that front. india has a real opportunity, but it needs to act fast, and it needs to act decisively in terms of how it is going to deregulate

some of these issues that have prevented education collaboration from taking off. sanjeev: given the perception of the visa problems here in the united states, is the united states even the only option for indian universities to collaborate with? you referenced australia, england, other countries. nisha: there is a real opportunity as we think about an innovation ecosystem to partner with u.s. universities that have been the backbone of the innovation ecosystem here in the united states. whether you are talking about the tech sector, talking about pharmaceutical and health care innovations, across-the-board. how do you take collaborations with some of these institutions and perhaps change the geography? amb. singh: indeed, new education policy that the indian government has announced, now

there is provision for foreign universities to set up campus in india. universities are looking at that cautiously because it is new. they are trying to make sure the kind of regulatory challenges that may navigate that. some universities including from australia have announced they are setting up campuses. i see some reports saying that u.s. universities are also actively looking at that. i think these conversations should continue, between universities that are interested, indian government, and work their way through. sanjeev: we have five minutes left. can we open up to the audience now? are there microphones for the audience? there are roving mics? nisha: there are two mics on either side. sanjeev: identify yourself,

please, and then pose a question to any of the panelists. >> founder and ceo of national u.s.-india trade chamber of commerce. my question is to the ambassador. we have known you for a while now. you have done a lot of things including the agency where you invited them to the embassy, which is $1.3 trillion economy of the u.s. my question is on the ports. i'm very concerned about the port to being either stagnant or losing all of their containers coming from china and other parts of the world. ports are affected. los angeles had about 42% of the port activity. it is coming down next week to 33%. this is a concern even for the state of washington. $21 billion opportunity when it comes to ports and maritime.

across-the-board, whether it is los angeles, washington state, where there are many ports, port of seattle, everett, all of these are being affected. will india be able to take over this opportunity? and how soon? thank you. amb. singh: i have not seen publicly any comment or thinking in india in terms of port activity to the u.s. although indian companies have taken -- to ports around different countries. that is certainly there. the focus in india more is in terms of infrastructure, including at ports in india. new connectivity products have been looked at. you heard about the india, middle east corridor, to build

connectivity to the gulf on to israel, and in israel to europe. that is certainly getting a lot of attention. i think those are the things being focused on. sanjeev: before we go to a second question, we can go forward on that. you just mentioned the india -middle east, europe cor idoor. i was talking to a senior indian diplomat yesterday. he was mentioning, because it is conceptual, india and america are strongly for it, it is still in a relatively conceptual stage. number two, given the problems in the middle east, there may be challenges about expanding activity along the corridor for now. amb. singh: from my perspective, i think it's gone beyond the conceptual. a lot is going on between india and the gulf, also between

israel and europe. interest from greece, italy, france. india has just opened up a consulate -- sanjeev: the only country to have an envoy. amb. singh: obviously, it is significant. there is a gap about the connectivity between the gulf and israel, so that is what everyone is working on, how to take that forward. especially if india and the eu do a free-trade agreement. if india and the u.s. would do a free-trade agreement, then you are looking at far more movement of goods. you need additional routes the law -- beyond what you have in the red sea and others. i do see huge opportunity. sanjeev: any other comments on that? another question, please. i see a question in the middle.

there is a gentleman already with a microphone. just one question? i think to this day wished ambassador from the united states to india is here, so we will cut it short and just one last question. >> stanford university. i really enjoyed the institute hosting this event and panel. i had a question about this tension between regulation and innovation. not all regulation stifles innovation. some may, when it puts barriers, but there is also regulations, data privacy, security of participants. could the panel discussed that from an india perspective? what regulation can be put in place moving forward which would facilitate and yet strengthen interchanges between the u.s. and india? >> i'm happy to start. you make a great point.

governments do need to be involved and they do need to regulate, prevent excesses that could harm their own populations. but it's a very dynamic conversation. i think the fact that the u.s. and india are engaged at high levels from a political perspective but also bringing in technical experts from across the respective governments to grapple with these issues, the united states doesn't have all the answers. but the fact that it is in this deep conversation with a trusted partner like india will probably mean that they will end up seeing eye to eye as these issues get resolved. sanjeev: with that, i think we will end the panel. maybe it is time for you to say hello to his successor. please join me in giving the panel a very big hand. [applause] >> thank you so much to the panelists. a few quick requests. could we have a photograph?

we will do one photo for the panel together. our photographer is here. please also accept a small token of thanks. it is our first time. some kinks. another round of thanks for our panel. thank you very much. [applause] we now have something very special in-store, truly. it is my great honor to invite

to the stage someone who plays a pivotal role in shaping the india-u.s. relationship at the very highest level. this is genuinely a very special occasion for us. ambassador vinay mohan kwatra serves as india's ambassador to the united states. his diplomatic career includes key assignments across foreign policy, trade, multilateral engagement. we don't have enough time to cover his storied career and impact. but at a time when global order is rapidly evolving, amb. kwatra's leadership is instrumental in strengthening one of the most consequential relationships and partnerships of our time between india and the united states. please join me in giving a very warm welcome to his excellency, ambassador vinay mohan kwatra and welcome him to the stage. [applause]

amb. kwatra: good afternoon. good afternoon to all of you. distinguished dignitaries, guests, students, members of the media, thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to speak to you this afternoon on the india-u.s. defining partnership for the 21st century. before i do that, i would take this opportunity, take a moment to request all of you present this afternoon, please observe just a moment of silence for the

26 innocent civilians who were brutally killed in terrorist attacks in india on the 26th of april. just a moment of silence for me in their memory, please. thank you. thank you very much. it is indeed my immense pleasure to speak to you at this inaugural hopkins india conference. india as a country has had a robust history of collaboration with this institution across multiple disciplines. madison, of course, public health, data, public science. the collaboration of various institutions in india have had with john hopkins reflects our

shared commitment and clarity to address global challenges, combining the scholarship and expertise of this institution with india's talent and skill. india-u.s. is a defining partnership for the 21st century, indeed, a shared clarity, but it is also one of the very few things on which there is bipartisan consensus in the u.s. and washington among various stakeholders, particularly in the congress. so we are truly blessed that this relationship enjoys very strong bipartisan across-the-board support. i will not go into the history of the india-u.s. relationship.

i will only say that our relationship matters today. it was not always like this. the habits of cooperation that we have cultivated, particularly in the last decade or so, are not always so endearing. and the last decade, in this context, has been truly transformative for our times. when my prime minister, prime minister modi first gave his address to the u.s. congress in 2014, he clearly said that two countries have the hesitations of history. and that is what i meant, in years gone by, our relationship was not of the kind that we enjoy today, that we nurture today. we would always be, in a manner

of speaking, less trusting of each other. of course, not i would say, since 2000, that the relationship began to take a different direction, more positive direction. my prime minister's first speech in the u.s. congress made reference to overcoming the difficulties of history, essentially points to a period where the two countries, the administrations in the two countries, stakeholders in the two countries are able to level up with each other, speak to each other in very honest and frank terms, even if there would be times and subjects we might agree to disagree. but that has made a very robust and strong foundation to build a truly, what we call, comprehensive strategic partnership.

over the last 10 years, the more time we have spent with each other, the more we have understood each other. the more we understood each other, the more we did together. the more we did, the more our partnership grew. in a world of flux, which we are all experiencing around us, our two countries have forged a truly genuine, comprehensive strategic partnership. before i speak to some of the specific pillars of our partnership which are providing impetus to advertise these days, i would take a moment to single out what are at least some of the key drivers of our partnership. what propels it forward. i would say the first and foremost in that category would

be the personal drive and momentum that is given to the relationship by the leadership of the two countries, by prime minister modi and prime minister -- president trump. the two enjoy a great friendship. we are very confident that the trajectory of ties will gain great momentum under the supervision, direction, and leadership of my prime minister and president trump. in president trump's second administration, prime minister modi paid a very early visit to washington, within the first month of the presidency assuming charge. february 13, the prime minister was here. we moved quickly to establish a very ambitious agenda of partnership which spanned across

several verticals. i would speak to some of those verticals as i go along, but they include defense, technology, naturally trade and economic cooperation, counterterrorism, critical and emerging technologies, enhancing what i would call strategic connectivity, both across the services sector but also across the infrastructure areas. in the process, orienting our partnership in a manner that not only serves our two societies, economies, but is also heavily country tory to the regional and global good. second q driver in my opinion is india's own economic trajectory. this is important because, in my

view, the growth strictly of india will go in parallel with the deepening of the india-u.s. partnership. the kind of opportunities that we would expect our two economies, two systems, cooperation between our nations to grow up, would be, in many ways, directly proportional on the one hand to the pace, strength, breadth, and direction of india's economic growth. india today is roughly at about 3.8 trillion. objective is to touch about 7.5, 8 trillion by the end of this decade. we are of course a fraction of the u.s. size of the economy. alongside this gdp growth jump from 3.8 two expected, about

7.5, eight by the end of the decade, there is also strong growth in five or six specific subsectors, which is again directly related to the growth in the partnership. one of them is the capital. naturally, very essential for india's rapid growth. credit growth within our, required for our strongly growing economy. consumption growth, which then drives the domestic growth part of our gdp. industry, talent, and services. in a way, growing individually, but also growing as a composite. one feeding into the other. very strong agricultural sector. very robust digital and innovation ecosystem. digital and innovation system that prioritizes value creation

instead of wealth creation. precisely because one of the primary objectives of building a robust digital ecosystem, innovation ecosystem is to be able to fulfill the government's needs of the population. that gives a very broad base to it, both in terms of the development of digital platforms, but also in terms of building applications which would actually be relevant, not just for our society, but would open up a very strong template of partnership and cooperation with our global partners in this particular case, united states. the third driver in my view would be the shared interest and priorities of the two countries. both in terms of opportunities that we want to harness, but also in terms of common

understanding, economic but also strategic and geopolitical that both countries face. four, a very important set of drivers i would say, combining together would be a very live people to people connect. we have roughly 5 million indian diaspora in the u.s. which forms a very strong, growing, vibrant, contributory bridge to the relationship. combining them with the values that both of our countries share. the value of democracy, value of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and a genuine understanding of how diverse societies flourish and grow together. there are, of course, other

important drivers in propelling this relationship forward. i thought i would give a very foundational base of these four key drivers. as you, in your own experience, map individual elements of the relationship, you will find each of those elements somewhere drawing a network connect to these four drivers in one way or another, in a very purposeful and very substantive way. let me now turn to some of the key aspects of the india-u.s. partnership. i referred to the visit of prime minister modi to washington in february this year, wherein we crafted a very ambitious agenda for the relationship which would be able to build on the foundations, layers of the

previous relationships that we have built across different administrations. each administration gives us a foundation on which we build a new foundation with the next administration. and then with the succeeding administrations, every such relationship has served as a launching pad for the relationship of growth. the first one on that that i would pick up is the defense and security cooperation. this is one pillar of our cooperation that has truly matured over the years. particularly, i would say over the last 20, 25 years. and it has today reached a point of very deep trust and strong reliability, which covers not just the trade of defense platform, trading and defense platform, but also a very

broad-based deepening of the institutional partnership between the armed forces and the arm systems of the two countries. whether that is joint exercises, logistic support leading to greater interoperability of the two platforms at the two countries use. naturally, intelligence sharing, defense industrial ties, and as i said, trade. about 25 years ago, around 2000, our trade was effectively negligible, defense trade was effectively negligible. in the last 25 years, our bilateral trade in defense alone has touched about $25 billion, giving a very strong base to partnership through defense procurement. but as i said, our defense cooperation is not just limited to buying and selling of the defense platform. it also extends to a wide range

of institutional cooperation which is now slowly extending to one strong defense technology partnership. a fairly dynamic, fast-growing defense innovation cooperation. equally important, in the area where the private sector of the two countries is now coming closer together to partner in the space of defense manufacturing, not just for the indian market, but also manufacturing units in india serving as a supply chain link for the global supply chain, value chains of the u.s. large manufacturers. there is a certain comprehensive character to the defense cooperation that has emerged the last 20, 25 years.

during the visit of the prime minister, following his meeting with president trump in the oval room, the two countries also rolled out a defense cooperation framework, what we call a chromium compact. it stand for catalyzing opportunities for military partnership, accelerated commerce and technology. in a manner, this captures a sense of what i just detailed a little while ago. beyond defense, but in hinging on both of our countries, national security, is a very serious issue of terrorism. in our case, in india's case, the issue of cross-border terrorism. our countries have built strong systems to fight terrorism, extremism, radicalization, drug trafficking, illegal migration,

cybercrime, and more. we truly value the cross-border counterterrorism cooperation that india and the u.s. have. we all witnessed in the recent horrific attacks and its aftermath, india has received overwhelming support from the united states. president trump was in fact the first leader to speak to my prime minister after the attacks while my prime minister was still on his visit to saudi arabia. he was the first leader to speak, condemn the terror attacks, to offer full support of stop strong strength behind india and condolences for the victims of the attack. we have also been overwhelmed by the strong bipartisan support that we have received from the

congress. senators, congressmen, large numbers, most proactively and clearly have voiced their condemnation for these terrorist attacks, voiced support for india. the incidents like these clearly point to the need for india-u.s. partnership to stand up to the terrorism and clearly convey to the world that there would be zero tolerance for such terrorist attacks, their backers and supporters who kill innocent civilians, innocent tourists in this case. to our energy partnership, this has also been one of the areas of very strong growth and expansion. the value of energy trade has risen quite sharply. also its dimensions have

increased across the domain. again, just about a decade or so ago, our value trade, energy trade was effectively close to zero. quite negligible. compared to today we stand at about $15 billion just in energy trade. again, an area of very rapid growth. we are expecting this to increase by at least another five to $10 billion in the coming years. the question of energy from our perspective, which actually links in very well with our cooperation, is one relating to energy excess, rely on bill -- reliable energy excess, affordable energy, relating to energy security. these two things, when you combine to how they relate to india's large needs of india's

fast-moving economy, this forms a base for our strong energy partnership, both in the conventional areas of energy such as oil and gas trade, but also in the case of the new and emerging areas of energy partnership, such as renewables, civil nuclear cooperation. we are moving very rapidly to give practical shape to our cooperation in the civil nuclear space. third, during the prime minister's visit, we also launched, initiated what we call trusts, standing for transforming the relationship utilizing strategic technology. this is a very crucial area and emerging area of partnership between our two economies, between the technology ecosystems of the two countries.

i would say to a very large extent, scientific and research institution between the two countries. the objective of this particular -- to focus on technologies across five or six key areas. defense is one. artificial intelligence is another. artificial intelligence not just limited to our cooperation in trying to see if we can shape foundational language learning models together, but also to see whether we can cooperate on the tactical aspects of ai, whether related to building agents to ai, or building application layers on the foundational layers which could be either relevant for the diverse economic ecosystem that india has -- although it includes a lot of structured and unstructured data.

but also to some of the domains which particularly lend itself to stronger use of artificial intelligence. for example, pharmaceuticals, auto sector. semiconductors has been an area of strong cooperation in the last two or three years. considering india has moved from pretty much having very incipient kind of semiconductor ecosystem to now building legacy nod fabs, also building associated ecosystem for the semiconductor area, whether it is assembly, packaging, the memory space, or the design ecosystem that goes along in the semiconductor space. quantum, still mostly in the research space. biotechnology, energy i mentioned, and a very robust and dynamic cooperation in the field

of space. the trust initiative is a fitting indicator of how we see the future direction of this relationship which will build on the existing domains of cooperation and lend itself to building very strong and robust agendas in these areas in the years ahead in our value trade partnership. in a related area, the fourth area which we touched on, we launched the indus innovation bridge, not only the links of our cooperation but other areas of our economic cooperation. and the central feature of this would be to build industry and academic partnership, link those partnership to investment, both private sector investment but also government sector

investment in the field of space, energy, and other emerging technologies that i just mentioned. a lot of what we were doing innovation links networks very neatly to whatever initiators would design and take under the trust initiatives. this is one space where our institutions like hopkins, with cutting-edge research can be among the most valuable partners that india seeks, that institutions which india seeks. beyond these key areas of our value trade engagement, we are also very strong partners in some of the regional settings. the most important of them include initiatives looking at both opportunities and the strategic challenges that we face. i2u2, standing for israel, u.s.,

uae, and imec, india-middle east-europe economic corridor, bringing together multiple nations to build connectivity in a manner that is not only promoting trade, business, economic cooperation but also allows us to build a strategic pathway to a very strong income together of nations on this corridor and the rest of the economic ecosystem that goes with it. sixth, i would put it as the last one maybe, maybe penultimate. links to one of the driver that i mentioned early on, which is the people to people ties. we have around 5 million strong, indian diaspora. close to 350,000 indian students in the united states.

and these form really live examples of the strong bond of friendship between our two countries. but along side, there are also force multipliers in the relationship. there is also, in a way, a resilience guarantee for our future partnerships. the imprint of the indian diaspora is quite strong. ceos of fortune 500 companies, we all know some of the names. eminent researchers, medical professionals. i am sure many of you are present here this afternoon, technocrats. the whole strength, the entrepreneurial spirit that the indian diaspora brings not only

in the business segment but also the services sector, which i mentioned. innovation, which they drive. in the respective professions they follow in the u.s. but also they learned a very strong hand to the growth of innovation ecosystem in india. that is a truly valuable proposition. also in the process, framing solutions that are relevant for the rest of the world also. i would say, in a way, this forms a very compact set of five or six areas, which if you begin to flesh out, it will all have been to a very large individual set of specific cooperative activities that the two countries and two systems are able to do. finally, and of course, talking about trade at the end for a

reason. our economic and trade ties have truly grown tremendously. united states is today india's largest trading partner, largest capital partner, largest technology partner for india. our trade currently stands at close to $200 billion. the talent pool that india has and the technology, frontier technology that the u.s. has, they complement each other very well. as our businesses, as our talent taps into these mutual strengths and combine it with robust two-way flows of capital and technology, these three triangulate to form a very strong business to business cooperation realities, i would say. indian investments also in the

u.s. have grown considerably. close to $50 billion. given that india is such a capital importing nascent, this is a strong investment that these companies have made in the u.s., generating close to half a million jobs. u.s. investments in india are also very large, generating a large employment base in india. both sides are also working very intensely for an expeditious conclusion of our bilateral trade agreement. the first tranche of the bilateral trade agreement with the objective to expand market access, cut tariffs, and open up the barriers, linkup supply chains more tightly, with the whole objective that we can layer this to build, take stronger steps to broad base and build new economic relations

between the two countries. i think, if you look at the overall technology capital, robust economic systems of the u.s., you look at what india brings to the table, you will find the two economies are highly complementary. we are not competitive economies, whether it is the services or manufacturing sector. that provides a very strong value base for our long-term strategic partnership. to wrap up, our relationship is bigger than its pieces. our two nations are diverse but very highly synergetic, what we can accomplish together. as we pursue our own interest

and strengthen our partnerships and regional and global trends, we are in a position to do a world of good, not just for ourselves, our two countries, two economies, societies, but also the rest of the world. i want to thank the institute once again and wish this conference only the very best in your proceedings. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador, for a very powerful reflection on the u.s.-india relationship, laying out the strategic pathways forward. i want to invite on the stage the founders of the the johns hopkins university gupta-klinsky india institute to share a small token of appreciation from our side and a quick photograph.

we also have our chair for the advisory board, the dean of the business school. i would invite you onto the stage as well. [applause]

we now turn our attention to the shifting patterns of global geopolitics and india's growing influence on the world stage. from in the pacific to multilateral forums, to critical technology alliances to defense cooperation, india is playing an increasingly central role in shaping the global order. this session will examine the strategic and diplomatic die mentions of this rise and how india's global positioning intersects with regional security, economic diplomacy, and creative power competition. we are honored to have with us mr. sadanand dhume to chair this important panel. sadanand dhume is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute and a renowned columnist at the wall street journal. he brings sharp analysis and deep contextual understanding of the south asian politics and

global affairs. he is joined today by two leading thinkers in foreign policy and security. lisa curtis, senior fellow and director of the indo pacific security program at the center for new american society. and dr. tanvi madan senior fellow at the brookings institution. we look forward to this rich discussion. over to you. sadanand: thank you very much. when i first heard of the topic of this panel, geopolitics influx, i was very happy because it is such a broad, expansive panel, topic title. you could put virtually anything into it. then of course the tragic events of the last few weeks unfolded

and we have probably a much more sharply focused discussion then we would have if we had this discussion say a month ago. we have two fantastic speakers over here. those of you familiar with the u.s.-india space are obviously familiar with both lisa and with tanvi. i will not get into long bios but just suffice it to say that lisa has been involved with india and pakistan from a u.s. government perspective for a long time. this is not the first crisis she is aware of. she has been on the ground, going back 25 years and longer. right now she is with the center for new american security. tanvi is at the brookings institution, you are aware of her writing, her book on u.s., india, china, her numerous television appearances. the way we are going to do this

today is keep this conversational and then leave some space at the end for your questions. i am sure you'll have questions. let me start with asking lisa a question. if you had to just explain what has happened over the last few weeks to somebody who was waking up right now from a coma, how would you lay it out? lisa: ok, thank you. it is great to be here. well, the current india-pakistan conflict -- we have not entered the conflict stage -- actually started on april 22 with horrific terrorist attacks against civilian, mostly tourists. 26 people were killed, 25 indian, one nepali. they were separated out and identified by religion, they were targeting hindus. they were shot and killed in

front of family members, in front of wives, children. it was absolutely a horrific scene in pahalgam, kashmir that day. india has retaliated. exactly two weeks later, india retaliated against terrorist infrastructure inside pakistan, both inside pakistani kashmir but also in the punjab, which is significant, the heart of pakistan, where india retaliated. it retaliated at the headquarters for the u.s. designated terrorist group. it retaliated where you have the headquarters, also a u.s. designated terrorist organization. pakistan claimed it shot down five indian aircraft after this indian retaliation. we have not heard from india on

this. we have heard from the french that at least one plane was shot down. i think we can assume that at least one, if not a few, indian aircraft were shot down. many of us thought on wednesday after the indian retaliation, pakistan reported that he had shot down indian aircraft, that we had an opportunity to de-escalate the crisis, walk down the escalation ladder. however, that is not what happened. what we saw on wednesday night was a lot of activity. india claims pakistani missiles and drones attempted to hit many indian military installations. india responded with apparent drone strikes, other strikes against pakistan's air defenses.

thursday, i think it was a very unclear day. i think we can say the fog of war has set in, where there is a lot of activity happening on both sides of the line of controls, as well as those sides of the border. it is a very alarming situation, dangerous situation. as sadanand indicated, i've been through many india-pakistan crises, during the 1990 nine cargo conflict, i was an analyst at the cia. during the 2001-2002 military buildup, i was at the state department. during the 2019 crisis, i was at the national security council. so i have seen how these things happen. once the crises start, it is really imperative that the united states is helping the two

countries to back away from the brink of an all out war. it is extremely important. i have watched with u.s. play this role. it is always necessary. i think in this crisis it is no different, that this is very important for the u.s. to be working the phones, talking to both sides, talking them both off the cliff. sadanand: tanvi, how would you say the current crisis in your view looks different from previous iterations of india-pakistan crises? dr. madan: i think a couple of things there. on the one hand, you see it almost in the same path of the last couple of crises we have seen in 2016, 2019. if you look at what we have seen in the crises before, setting aside 1990 nine because that didn't involve terrorist

attacks. that involved military personnel from pakistan going over, attempting to cross the border into india. in 2001 during the attack on the indian parliament, 2008 with the mumbai attacks, where terrorist groups based in pakistan were involved, what you saw was a couple of things. one, on the indian side, second, how the u.s. also used to handle those crises, their relationships, the u.s. relationship with india and pakistan were quite different in a couple of ways than. in those crises what you saw is, while in the immobilized forces in 2001, for a considerable amount of time on both sides there were deployments. india showed restraint. not react or retaliating military. same thing in 2008. considerable amount of restraint

shown by the prime minister, praised by international observers, not criticizing india for that restraint. just before an election, not military retaliation. the reason he is often praised, next year, you saw india grow 9%. there are larger things at play here for india as well. what you saw after that in 2016, and in both of those cases -- partly because the u.s. was involved in afghanistan militarily, needed pakistan in a different way. pakistan's utility for the u.s. was different. you had the bush administration restraint on both sides. there was a lot of shuttle diplomacy involved. what you saw in 2016 and 20 different. it wasn't that this was the first crisis. sadanand: walk them through what happened because not everyone may be aware. tanvi: it wasn't the first

attack on indian personnel or citizens during the modi government. there was another one in 2015. in 2016, what you ended up seeing was an attack on indian military personnel, pakistani-based group took credit for it, and you saw india conduct what it described as surgical strikes. a few soldiers took action across the line of control that controls the pakistan and india parts of kashmir. what you saw in 2019, when you saw another attack on indian personnel, india strike with aircraft, not just across the line of control but international border. the other thing that you saw differently in these two cases was the u.s. government not called for indian restraint after the attack and not criticize those indian strikes. both the obama administration and the first-round term, lisa

was actively involved in the decision. nonetheless, also after those strikes, call for de-escalation once those strikes were complete. when you are seeing, there is a range of things that are different this time, including how the u.s. is approaching this currently. just on what india's actions have entailed, a couple things different. you saw after the terrorist attack, one, it was civilians. the previous crisis was on military personnel, this was civilians. as lisa pointed out, targeted by religion. this is also the worst sibling attack on indian since the mumbai attack. you also saw, the victims were from over a dozen indian states. national residence even beyond kashmir. just a couple of other points quickly that make this moment different.

you saw in this case, a group called the resistance front, that in dealings with the designated terrorist group first take credit, then withdraw the claim. in 2019, the group took credit for it very quickly. what you have seen, that is one difference, while you have seen a number of a number of statements, including from the u.s., not actually until recently you have seen international statements condemn the attacks. also not draw a direct line to pakistan yet. american statements have at least generally talked about pakistani-based terrorist groups. the last point that i will make that is different is it is clear in the indian military retaliation, as lisa pointed out, they wanted to go beyond what they did in 2019 which was attacked some terrorist

infrastructure. doubts about what was hit, etc., i won't go into that, but what you saw is many more locations targeted, explicitly saying that it is terrorist-based infrastructure. especially the strikes on punjab which is different. sadanand: from 1999 onwards, pakistan -- india response, and then the u.s.. the point of counsel comes later. this time we have a u.s. administration with the vice president said, well, this is not something for us to get involved in. the secretary of state spoken with the indian and pakistani prime minister and tweeted about it also. we are at a moment in the u.s. where at least a significant

number of supporters of the current administration feel that the u.s. has been overinvolved and overextended in the world's problems. we don't have to be involved in everything. how do you see that kind of mood, that uri may not agree with but that exists -- you or i may not agree with but exists come how do you see that affecting the crisis potentially? lisa: how people are interpreting particularly vice president vance's comments that the u.s. cannot control this. we are not going to get deeply involved. i think people are seeing that as perhaps this administration is not going to take the u.s. traditional role of getting involved quietly, talking to both sides, counseling restraint, trying to prevent a conflict that could tenderly go nuclear. -- could potentially go nuclear.

i think that that would be a mistake, a grave error if in fact the u.s. were to take a sort of stand back policy, because this is a dangerous situation. anytime there is a conflict between two nuclear-armed states that have gone to war in the past -- there have been three major wars than one major border conflict between these two countries. i think it would be a mistake if that was the thinking. like you said, we've heard a different message from secretary of state rubio who has been very clear that he has been on the phone, talking with the indian foreign minister on several occasions, he has talked also with the pakistani prime minister and the deputy prime minister and foreign minister in pakistan.

i think this is good. i think it's the right thing to try to provide ways that the two countries can find a face-saving way out and using that influence that the u.s. has. saudi arabia is involved. i think the iranian foreign minister has tried to get involved in the de-escalation efforts. when it comes down to it, the u.s., the most powerful country in the world, that is the most important country to be involved and i think there is still a role. i think it's important for secretary of state rubio to also engage with the chief of army staff, because at this point in the conflict pakistan has been de-escalating in the last 36 to 48 hours and he is the one who is directing these military -- i

meant escalating. pakistan has been escalating the crisis in the last 36 hours. it is the chief of army staff who is directing these military operations. it's important for secretary of state rubio to get on the phone with him. in india you have a civilian-led military. it's fine to be engaging with the civilian leadership in india. in pakistan, you have to engage with the military leadership, because they are the ones in control, they are driving the pakistani response. sadanand: over the years we have learned so much about different military chiefs. pakistan, one of the most interesting contrasts between india and pakistan is that we know virtually nothing about who becomes the chief of the indian army, whereas in pakistani army

chief is the most important factor in that country. asim munir was relatively unknown when he rose to the position. what is your best read of what he is like and what this means for the crisis. lisa: i will caveat this that i am not an expert on the pakistani military. several academics have done great work on the pakistani military, like a great piece recently in the financial times on the domestic dynamics. from the perspective of him and the crisis, i think he is in some ways the known unknown. a person who is not like -- we know enough to know that he's not like the previous pakistani army chief -- and maybe lisa has thoughts on that -- he was there during the previous crisis and did take the exit ramp, so to speak, that was presented then.

what we know about general munir is that he is considered to be more aggressive, more of a true believer. he is also in a slightly different circumstance and context where you've seen the pakistani military reputation within pakistan to take some hits. in part because of the nature of the involvement in pakistani politics, particularly the detention of the former prime minister. and you come at a context where this is a time when you're feeling under pressure to show that this is why the pakistani military is relevant, still essential, still a reason that you need a big chunk of the pakistani defense budget as a whole. or you see it as an opportunity to actually say it is not so much that you are on the defensive come you go on the

offensive and say that this is an opportunity for me to show that the pakistani military is actively involved and can defend its borders. i think the things that we do know about general munir is that he is different from his predecessor, and we don't know if you will be willing to take the exit ramps that may present themselves. he hasn't taken and thus far. part of whether it was connected or not, at least there was a coincidence that just a few days before the april 22 attack, which had these dimensions, the general gave a pretty inflammatory speech, not just about kashmir, but the hindu-muslim divide as being crucial, and other inflammatory

ways that i won't repeat, but that informs the context as well of how he is potentially seen and what his belief system is. lisa: can i add one point? i think that tanvi is right that . does -- is right that asim munir seems to be more of a hawk on india, but general munir is interested in improving the u.s. pakistan relationship. he has shown a great deal of interest in having better lesions with the united states. this was a card that the u.s. can play, because there were tentative steps made towards improving the relationship with pakistan. we saw president trump in his address to congress thank pakistan for its help in extraditing one of the perpetrators in the attack in

kabul. we know that pakistan held the critical minerals conference. there were tentative steps towards improving the relationship. i think that that is something that someone like secretary of state rubio could hold out, that look, there is room to improve this relationship. number one, you need to de-escalate this current crisis, and number two, you need to make sure that terrorists are not operating freely on your territory. sadanand: that partly answers my question, but i will ask it in any case. the way that i see it, one of the reasons why it was relatively easy to the escalade in 2019, a couple of reasons. first, there were widely different claims on what exactly happened when india struck the terrorist camp. the indian media claimed that india killed large numbers of

terrorists. the international media and pakistani media said that india hit a tree. then you had a tit-for-tat and an indian jet was down, the pilot was captured, the pakistanis returned him. the way that the dynamic was in 2019 was that both countries could declare victory and both countries did declare victory to their own people. this situation is very different. the pakistanis have acknowledged that at least 31 people have been killed in indian strikes. the political and social and cultural significance of india hitting places that, let's face it, for decades have existed under the patronage of the pakistani army. these are absolutely some of the safest places in the world to be if you are a terrorist.

the fact that the indians have attacked these with missiles, it makes asim munir's domestic situation more precarious. i will add to that the fact that i think that the indians want an offramp and have wanted an offramp from the start. you can see the statement after the first strikes, they were basically trying to signal that we are done now, we have retaliated, we can end this right now, but i don't think that the indians want this to end in terms where the pakistanis can claim, as in 2019, that they scored victory too. even the complexity, one card that the u.s. has is that pakistan wants to improve its ties with the u.s. if you are advising secretary of state rubio at this moment, what other cards -- what else do you think could be done to prevent

pakistan from escalating further? it seems likely at this moment that they will escalate. tanvi, if you could answer the same question. lisa: again, you have the terrorist problem in pakistan. we should all be asking how in 2025 are u.s.-designated terrorist groups like lashkar-e-taiba still around . how is the let leader only on house arrest and not in a proper jail? all of these questions need to be asked. pakistan in the past has been on the gray list of the financial action task force for its support to these groups. so, that's another mechanism where action could be initiated. of course, there is the u.n. where in 20 the u.s. worked hard to ensure that a leader was

designated as a terrorist. the u.s. had been pursuing that effort for a long time, but it had been blocked by china for many years. -- really making the point the pakistan about the fact it can no longer support these terrorist groups. it is very telling that the strike ended up killing a man, who was involved -- danny pearl in 2002. it took 22 years, but finally

justice was served. for that terrorist act. so, the question has to be asked, why couldn't pakistan take action against this brutal terrorist? this is a problem, it has to be dealt with. we have to get the two countries to step back from an all out war. when the situation calms down people will be asking questions about the terrorists still operating freely inside pakistan. sadanand: if you had a five-minute phone call or meeting with the secretary of state, what would you ask him to do? tanvi: things like the financial action task force, the pakistani military gets a good chunk of the international military training education program.

there is a different dimension, and i will say that when lisa talked about the importance of the u.s. approach to this, in previous crises both sides in different ways almost expect intervention so that they don't escalate. india does not like mediation, pakistan wants mediation, but both almost expect and sometimes want some kind of an intervention to help them shine a light on where the exit ramps are, highlight them. i think could also help with a narrative shaping. both governments have an ability to shape a narrative, but what the wins and losses are. there is another dimension. the u.s. is not the only actor here, or one if we are talking about who will shine a spotlight on the exit ramp for general

munir, there are other actors involved. partners of pakistan like the saudis, the chinese, the british government has links with the pakistani military. part of it, and i'm sure that lisa did this, is coordination with some of these actors. we back when in 1999 and 2008 there was coordination. you can still have certain conversations because while the chinese have been very supportive of the pakistanis, trying to dissuade an indian military strike, criticized the indian military strike, their next statement after calling the indian military strike regrettable, only one of two countries that criticized india, they said that we counsel restraint and we are willing to work with others to coordinate. they are not an honest broker, they are supplying one, but they have leverage and they don't

want the situation. the same with the saudi's and the uae and catarrh. -- and qatar. they have indian strategic ties where they are also having a different view of this. they had a similar statement about de-escalation but not criticizing. i think that it's about bringing in other countries and seeing that kind of leverage. the final thing that i will say is, we talk about this as perhaps the potential for escalation is limitless. i don't think that that's true in the sense that these are both rational actors on both sides. one of the things that at least the people around general munir will be aware of is resource limitations. pakistan does not have an endless supply of military equipment, spares, or servicing. when you are fighting conflicts

you need to have an economy that can help you in stores of food and energy. you recently wrote a column in the journal pointing out the capabilities gap. maybe you want to say something about that. whatever the conventional military balance is, etc., there are limits on, kind of, the ability, to both sides to some extent, but particularly pakistan without that support. those countries it is expecting support from come if they say that you need to de-escalate, they have to listen. sadanand: a couple of statistics from a column. the india population is six times as large as pakistan but india's economy is 11 times as large. the indian defense budget is $86 billion, and the pakistani defense budget is $10 billion. a market capitalization that is more than four times larger than the entire pakistan stock exchange. the economic mismatch is massive.

tanvi, let me broaden this. all three of us were at the technology summit in delhi before the massacre. left to itself india has a lot going on and there are a lot of other things that it is interested in. it would like the pakistan problem to go away, but that is not how the world works. tanvi, if you could put yourself in the shoes of a decision-maker in new delhi. you have this problem, you have the political pressure that arises to do something, but you also have the fact that india will be the third largest economy in the world in a few years. it has different steaks. how would you look at it if you were looking at it as an indian decision-maker right now? tanvi: you have provided the gist of it. this is the reason why you've

seen indian officials repeatedly say that we have a commitment to non-escalation unless the other side responds, then we will respond in the same domain. for india, there is a negative and positive aspect. the positive is, you have a lot of other things going on. you have an economy that is one of the fastest in the -- fastest growing economies in the world. as the first panel discussed you want to attract investment. you don't want to be re -hyphenated as one of the most dangerous places in the world again. you want to say that you are open for business. before the military strikes they signed a trade agreement with the u.k. they are in the middle of

negotiating one with the u.s. and european union. they want to stay on track, they need to have job creation, the growth of skill, create about 8 million jobs per year, that is what india will be keeping an eye on. you don't want to get derailed from the broader strategic objective. india has a china border that has been -- that was in crisis in 2020. in fact, they redeployed troops from the pakistan border to the china border. china, being pakistan's closest friend, it isn't that they haven't militarily intervened, but they have been helpful to the pakistanis, or at the very least india has to think about the border. it is military modernization. everything was directed to thinking about china as andy's strategic rival, -- as indy's strategic rival. india also has to -- india has a

better defense industrial base than it used to, it is producing more munitions at home, it probably has more stores because it has partly been thinking about a china crisis. at the end of the day, who have india's suppliers been? india, russia, even ukraine. let's say that those are focused on other things. even india has to think about other things, and at the end of the day wants to stay on track to where it was going, having an economy creating 8 million jobs per year. sadanand: keeping a broader than the current crisis, if you could give the audience a sense of the larger u.s.-india relationship, which you have worked on for so many years. not all of it was india-pakistan crisis management. lisa: i think from the united states' perspective, this crisis

is very unhelpful to the u.s.' s broader indo pacific strategy. part of that is developing the u.s.-india bilateral relationship, strengthening that. seeing india play a larger role in the indo pacific region. developing relationships in southeast asia. contributing to maritime security in the indian ocean region, and even in the broader indo pacific region. i think that the u.s. releasees india -- really sees india playing an increasingly important geopolitical role throughout the region and as a counterweight to china. even though india's economy isn't near the level of china's,

the militaries are different in terms of capabilities, but still inda does have very strong military capabilities. i think that it is rated the fourth most powerful military in the world by the global firepower index. certainly, we want india to have those capabilities to stand up to china. looking at the india-china border crisis, you know, it was hopeful that in -- it was helpful that india was able to hold the line and was patient in terms of the de-escalation of that crisis. india insisted that it wouldn't go back to normalizing ties with china until china returned to pre-may 2020 military positions. that is what happened. they have been able to disengage from positions and de-escalate

that situation to some degree. for the u.s., india is extremely important. the u.s. wants to build that strategic partnership, not only for the strategic military aspects, but also on the economy and technology. we were just at the global technology summit and it is clear that technology is going to be a key part of the growing u.s.-india relationship. it was a major area of focus during the biden administration, the initiative on critical emerging technologies, and we can see from modi's visit to the white house in february, the trust initiative, that the u.s.

is hoping to work with india on things like ai and semiconductors. the fact that india has such extraordinary talent in this field, technology and engineering. there are many reasons why the u.s. is interested in building that strategic partnership with india. unfortunately, this current crisis situation that india and pakistan are in takes india away from being able to move forward and focus on developing its economy and being engaged in the indo pacific region in a broader way. obviously when you are in a crisis situation nothing is more important than defending the country. india is being forced to focus

on the situation with pakistan right now. that's where we are. sadanand: let me open it up and take a couple of quick questions. do we have mics? the lady in pink. in front. do you have to go to a mic? what is the system? do you have mics? the person in blue. one request, keep it short, keep it a question. if you start delivering a lecture i will cut you short. >> what can india do to recognize somali land or taiwan? trump has been working to get a port to get some recognition. also, india has about 142 embassies, but what can india do to have more embassies?

tanvi: very quickly, there has been a lot written about the indian foreign service needing to expand. it is not just quantity. you have seen some changes. the batches of foreign service officers have increased. there are other ways to do this. bringing in more people through lateral entry. embassies, some have been opened in the baltics and latin america. at the end of the day, there will have to be some creativity. someone like me, yes, in an ideal way india needs to increase its defense budget and diplomacy budget as it becomes a power that is operating in many fields. i will quickly say that these things are a chicken and the egg thing. the u.s. didn't always have

these things. when the interests grew they started building up the system. i know nothingi will say on indi don't think you will see and i don't think the u.s. can get india to change its diplomatic position on status of taiwan. what india stopped doing long before the u.s. and the trump administration is doing a similar thing, is not reiterating the one china policy, but also deepening ties with taiwan pretty much across many domains and i think what india is contributing is making taiwan feel less isolated. a lot of activity that gets lost in terms of that. there's a lot worth following.

>> i'm going to ask a variation of the question. in some ways the india and pakistan crisis is different from before because there are kinetic and non-kinetic measures employed that have short, medium and long-term implications. it's not just the traditional tit for tat moves but also treaties, economic measures in terms of trade. it seems to be going in a direction that would consume indian attention for a long period time. how does new delhi resist that, withstand the pressure domestically to do more on the pakistan side but still, we are on a panel about india on the world stage, how do you focus on

other relationships. are there lessons from south korea? >> keep the answers quick so we can get one more question. >> it's going to be difficult, no doubt. you raise an interesting point about south korea and of course the united states works closely with south korea to deal with the north korea challenge. i wouldn't compare pakistan to north korea by any stretch but i would say probably india is going to be talking with its partners more about the terrorism problem. i think we will hear a lot more about terrorism and that will become part of the u.s. and india relationship your

counterterrorism has always been there but i think the prominence will go up and also in venues like the quad, i think india will make the counterterrorism issue much more prominent. sadanand: are you waiting for a question? go ahead. >> i'm curious, india has a lot of problems on its own. i'm curious that's when a terror attack happens, we see on one side geopolitically everybody condemning the attacks, there is a retaliation, countries are saying act with restraint. when you're talking about the ramp where we need a spotlight, where is the solution?

two countries need to condemn terrorism -- do countries need to condemn terrorism? what is the permanent solution in terms of a global challenge? sadanand: you have one minute to solve the global terrorism problem. [laughter] lisa: i was thinking more about the india and pakistan dispute, and the most helpful role the united states played when you're talking about the kashmir issue is former president clinton, following the 1999 cargo conflict, he talked about needing to respect the sanctity of the line of control, essentially establish a de facto border. i think that's the only

solution, you're not going to change borders through blood, in this day and age. i think both countries except that and operate on that basis, the more opportunity to move forward. that would be my response. tanvi: just quickly, two things, you have to walk and chew gum at the same time. this is not about politics, i think in the sense that i think this prime minister can shape and affect politics, i don't think it will cause that pressure. you can't escape geography, this is something india has to deal with but i think there's a fundamental problem that's not just india's problem, it's frankly a u.s. problem, a u.k. problem, and a pakistani problem as well. which is folks need to decide,

you cannot have the state finance and harbor terrorism. it will blowback not just against american, indian, reddish citizens, pakistani citizens at the end of the day and prevent pakistan from growing like it was growing, sometimes faster than india. it was pointed out recently, as recently as 2008, pakistan had a higher per capita gdp than india. not just india. a great book about the u.s. experience in afghanistan in 9/11, it makes the point better than i do, at the end of the day -- i don't think we can force them to make that decision. it's about using their own intelligence services, what have they done for them lately in

terms of the economy rather than continuing to support these groups? sadanand: on that note, i want to thank our wonderful speakers. . thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] [indistinct conversations] [applause]

>> thank you so much. thank you for the thorough analysis about the crisis currently unfolding between india and pakistan and setting it in the context of global geopolitics. we now turn to a timely and strategic conversation. i know there have been too many panels back to back, maybe you can stand up and stretch a little. in a minute we have a panel will be talking about trust, which stands for transforming the relationship utilizing strategic technology between india and the u.s. this panel will dive into the opportunities and challenges facing that partnership and how we can build a foundation of mutual trust. we are privileged to have with us professor joshua white to chair the session, a professor of international relations at

johns hopkins school of advanced international studies and formally of the you in national security council. joining him, we have exceptional voices, kriti is the founder of the indus council. and dhruva, executive director of orf america. joshua: thank you, it's great to be here in my home institution, i didn't have to travel far. it's terrific to have an india focused event of this scale and depth and i'm privileged to have been working on this and a lot of other events. in a moment when they are terrible things happening in this part of the world and the world more broadly, it's

reassuring to know you can come to johns hopkins and get a chilled mango lessi. really delighted to have friends and interlocutors to talk about the technology dimension of the u.s.-india relationship. this has come up in the last couple panels and discussions today and there's so much material to mine. we have not only new material but new acronyms to unpack, that's one of the wonderful things about washington, every time there is a new administration there is a concerted planning cell to rebrand new acronyms. we will try to dig into key technology areas and discuss what the future might look like in these areas. i want to begin by asking if you

could give us the lay of the land of this new u.s.-india trust initiative. where does it fall on the family tree of technology initiatives that the u.s. and india have had over the years and what kind of topics does it include in the current incarnation? kriti: thank you, always a pleasure to be here. i will answer your question, i promise. first, let's think about this -- 20 years back there was nothing, absolutely nothing. today when we look at india's tech infrastructure, india is the largest user outside the united states. everything is american. just last week, we started

working with hawkeye in the rf space, and american startup. how did we get here? a few years back there was some alignment. maybe there were first talks about the tech partnership. it was very nebulous but they went ahead with it and kept building. various administrations and governments, it didn't matter. it propelled us forward and anything that propels you forward is not a failure. joshua: defense technology trade initiative. kriti: yes, sorry. it wasn't just alignment, we are

thinking about pilot projects, we are thinking about -- it was still very government led but we were starting to co-op companies. fast forward, we are moving from alignment and pilots to actual platforms and the realization we are coming to is let's do less, let the government do less. we were like we are the government, these are the areas, we will do the matchmaking, you do you. with trust we are going a bit deeper. let's form the basis of this relationship. let's focus on compute and ai and lay the foundations and let companies do what they do best. what is trust about? governments providing and enabling infrastructure because that's the best governments can

do. secondly, it's about technology. gone are the days that innovation is happening in labs. it's happening today in startups. gone are the days where technology or operational efficiency is shaped in skiffs. it's being shaped in we work, in board rooms. it's about making sure technology is flowing from the private sector and government is absorbing it. thirdly and lastly, trust is about the u.s. and india democracies doing the best. this isn't the russia model we followed, which is top-down. it's about startups, and taking the relationship forward.

what is trust? what is in the name? it's the same, trust is our governments coming together, into grading, hibbing, coming up with fancy acronyms to propel us forward in the relationship. joshua: a great back story. i want to ask if you could unpack a little bit before we get to significant -- specific technology, some of the mutual logic. it's not always natural, what is in it for the united states and what is in it for india and where did they each see their best play? dhruva: thank you josh and johns hopkins and the organizers, it's a privilege to be here. kriti ran through a brief history of the u.s. and india

tech collaboration on the defense side. a few things to keep in mind, this was in some ways -- we are seeing a sort of high-level engagement led by the prime minister's office in india and the national security council. and second, it is the private sector. for india, a big challenge to dow back between the 1970's and 1990's was the idea that there was something behind the technological curtain and adding access, eliminating terriers for export control. the u.s. was one of the leading sources of technology innovation in the world, arguably the leading source. that was the big goal of a number of initiatives darting really in the 1990's but

extending until recently could we are in a new phase where we've moved away from how do we lower the barriers to how do we actually push and incentivize collaboration and it will require the private sector. what's the logic behind it? for india it's a bit more obvious. the u.s. is a technological leader in many areas, that india has prioritized. support for security and economic growth and prosperity. this includes defense space, telecom, i/o tech, ai, quantum computing, clean and green technologies. for the united states, there are two things. i think the biden administration had a particular logic to it and it was really in the aftermath,

if you remember, they came in during the height of the covid pandemic and the question of supply chain security was top of mind for people like jake sullivan at the white house who were leading some of the tech policy. i think supply chain security was top of mind, how can we work with trusted partners to strengthen supply chain's? there were real concerns because of u.s.-china competition about the overconcentration of supply chain's in china and manufacturing in general. this initially animated the biden administration to within a few months, it was quite quick of their coming in, upgrade the quad and in a year or two, launch i said. the trump administration has a slightly different set of priorities, not entirely

mutually exclusive, and sometimes focused on specific things. ai data centers a the computing power needed will be vast. a lot of it will be here but they understand having it in places -- in other places will bring down the cost. nuclear is another area, and critical mineral supply chains. these are top of mind for the trump administration. those were all mentioned in the trust statement that rebranded trust. not entirely moving away but focused on a few of these areas. we will see less of an infosys on clean and green energy, -- we will see less of an emphasis on clean and green energy, not surprising. joshua: if you're india and you

want to acquire advanced technologies, let's look at the united states logic. in many areas the united states is at or near the technology frontier. and in many areas india is behind a little bit and sometimes considerably. if you are the united states, explain more the driver -- not just having the technology partnership but the biden administration, national security advisor spending and extort an amount of time with this partnership. what is the short-term/long-term logic in play and how much will that logic carry over into this administration? dhruva: i can put it into one word, scale. if you're going to do anything at scale, you have to involve india. something was written recently in foreign affairs that makes the case that if the u.s. -- the u.s. can compete on its own in

various frontier technologies and do it well but if you're taking on china that has four times the population, you need scale and that only comes with europe, japan, korea, other trusted u.s. allies, australia. but to really work at scale -- and related to the cost. people in various companies say i want to compete globally and i have the best product, but the only way i can decrease manufacturing cost is to manufacture some in india. it's really about scale. joshua: which is a great segue to the questions about ai broadly because a lot of the game is a scale game. particularly with distributed requirements for computational power, compute, and a big piece of this is not thinking about -- is thinking about ai models.

there was a lot of prominence in the recent statement about this trust initiative. where do you see the low hanging fruit or the potential for actual collaboration in both of these? in compute and in models where the u.s. and china have i think significant advantages. you're welcome to reply in the order you prefer. kriti: i will just add, i think another benefit for the u.s. is getting into some of these other markets. both from a cost perspective but also technology sensitivity perspective. i will give an example. already u.s. tough is so expensive. in india it is cheaper. this is most relevant in third

markets where you want to penetrate. there are areas where technology is when the controlled and you can work with india to not only have cheaper but not controlled versions. they supply egypt and those things can be made in places like india. on ai, i think india will be the training ground for ai, making the models stronger across the board. talking about llm's, more diverse languages, terrain. india is the best at high altitude warfare. it's all about tom and me today, -- autonomy today, if you want to train a thomas systems, that has to come from india. three areas, and i'm glad

compute was mentioned, the supercomputers the u.s. gave to india were critical. compute power will be critical, data centers will be critical. a lot of indian companies including big conglomerates are investing in the u.s. on data centers. there is a need to think about joint data centers and energy. that's why i was so happy when prime minister modi was here and we started talking about the nuclear reactors and so on because that reliable, cheap energy will be very critical for ai. finally, this is a little boring so we don't give it as much thought, we don't want to work on it but it's so critical. we've had dialogues and so on but we need to work on ethics and morality and deciding the rules of the game.

we want to do it before people who don't think like us start doing that. i think ai is a huge opportunity for india and u.s. and india cooperation but there are two things i'm fearful about. one is -- and we saw a little bit of this happening with chatgpt and india ai, not sure what it's called. deepsea and all of that. we shouldn't be in an ai race. we shouldn't think who will build faster, we should think how can we build together and build sustainably, how can we build for the future and in an ethical manner? that's one thing, we don't want to get into an ai race on stupid things. secondly, i think the fearful part is the thing about the

rules of the games for ai just for industry at large but also perhaps even more so in some of these areas like defense and autonomy. dhruva: i would say on ai, again, the u.s. has an incredible ai ecosystem and it's a very exciting time and exciting field but there are certain ingredients needed. there are a couple that need to be thinking about more. one is the hardware side, which is where india lacks the most. we are seeing some big ones coming online. second is the data, the vast amounts of data in india. the u.s. also has that. two other dimensions, one is talent. at every level, you need the talent and a lot is coming from india.

there was a great study a few years ago on where some of the top ai talent was coming from and india, for the really top-tier, it's the second largest source. easily in the top three with the u.s. and china. there will be competition for that talent. fourth is the natural resources. land, energy, water, critical minerals. everyone is realizing, estimating what this will cost on the hardware side. that's why a country like singapore or taiwan will have limitations. they have the talent but they are constrained. i think india brings bits of all of that to the table.

a source of user data but also the talent piece is worth pointing out. joshua: i want to ask about the semi conductor dimension. india announced a semi conductor mission, and there were and are a lot of skeptics and some of the things we hear from the skeptics is look, this is a prestige play more than well thought through effort at building to a comparative advantage. india doesn't have a supporting infrastructure and india wants to start with logic chips rather than things that would move up the semiconductor value chain. etc., etc. what have you seen since the time india launched this effort that makes you optimistic and

what have you seen that makes you think this could happen but it could be a long slog? dhruva: i think a lot of people haven't looked at that in detail and i will tell you why i mostly optimistic about it. i think it's a very serious priority and not just about prestige. if we project forward like business as usual approaches, india will import more in semiconductors than oil. it will be hugely the -- hugely expensive. at some point it will have to manufacture semiconductors as well. the idea, this discussion is even in india, we are still providing basic services, they think of it as this expensive thing but it's so integral to day today lives, everybody has this computer in their pocket. semiconductors will be integral

to any society going forward into the fact that india cannot manufacture it if it continues would be a major hindrance. second, there's been enormous financial outlay. -- india spent almost $50 billion on tech broadly, public funding. -- chips and signs act level. think about it in proportion to the economy, it is massive area this funding has already been spent. a big chunk of that has gone towards semiconductor, a variety of different things. where is india going with this? in the past there have been two attempts developing infrastructure. one in the 1980's, one in the early 2000 that did not go anywhere. the best they could do was a 180 nanometers fab, which had its own problems.

that is kind of where india was before the semiconductor mission started. in the intervening period, what we have seen is three levels -- it is always a full supply chain. indian companies are always pretty well integrated into the design side. pretty much every semiconductor company has some exposure to using talent from nvidia, you name them, to different degrees. on that front, there have been some major inventions with the help of the u.s.. training 60,000 people in india, in the semiconductor field. a major investment announced in 2023. applied materials is also a bit of an engineering center. the second is the fab. some people thought of it as the cherry on top, but it is important. there has been investment in the necessary info structure for fabs -- infrastructure for fabs.

because that is what works. and creating the infrastructure four times the current capacity. this includes land, water, dedicated electricity, transport. there is one major fab being constructed now. a taiwanese company in collaboration with -- the scope now for much more. the third bit which is an easier entry point, the packaging side. at least two facilities coming up. another one might be in ups well. the areas where that is coming up as a macron have a joint venture in that space. so at every level you are seeing the investments we made. this is the start, not the end.

it is going to produce 28, 28 nanometer chips. we are not yet -- we are not knocking three nanometer or what china and taiwan are doing -- even the u.s. is struggling with that. we have seen some success in the u.s. side. but this is the pathway forward. these investments have been made, therefore we found buyers for it. this is serious. the question is can this be the start of something, or for a variety of reasons, will it require private investment to take it further? >> i want to ask about some defense topics which could be hours long discussion. the main things india wants to make for itself. it has many defense needs. we have seen that over the last few days. could you help us think about what india could make that others might want? whether it be u.s., india nexus

to the production or developing things together, where do we stand in that story of doing things together or -- india producing, designing things that could have a market here? either as part of larger systems or buying off-the-shelf? >> are would love to answer that question. i think there is so much. software and military on the manufacturing side. the whole defense military industrial complex is reaching a lot in the past decade or so. one of the major shifts that has happened -- unfortunately india has not necessarily capitalized on it as much. one major shift is earlier, defense was mostly hardware. today, you would have 60%, 70% hardware, today it has been flipped.

they are not as critical or part of the whole suite of offerings as the software is. the software is something india is really good at. the u.s. and india together are really good at it. even if you think in terms of the talent piece, the u.s. itself has around -- china has about 8000 engineers, the u.s. and india have over 15,000 engineers. the software part is rare. a lot the u.s. and india can do. i will give you a personal example. i think this is something we can replicate in defense services. in this is also an area where it its technology and folks learn a lot. our company, we provide software services. what it does, it lowers the cost.

it gives us an ability to add to the natal infrastructure. in the process, our engineers, their learning curve has been phenomenal. software services is a great area where the u.s. and india work together. on the military side, if you are thinking about on the manufacturing side, too. there are various areas within manufacturing composites and so on, smelting within the defense infrastructure. india is doing a lot of work. platforms, in terms of platforms, india is still getting there. software services, integration is where i would start working right now. but platforms take some time. >> just a couple of things. the software component and the value of it will be higher going forward. i think when you look at the

macro picture of the u.s.-india defense corporation, people miss the component manufacturing in india. it is quite significant. the other thing is mro possibilities. for maintenance, repair and overhaul. but basically, servicing of military equipment, we are now seeing more american vendors looking at the service in india. for a variety of reasons it makes sense from a cost perspective. but also, the location. it is cheaper sometimes for u.s., for allied forces and the indo pacific to go to india rather than fight it back to the u.s. these are some areas we will see the defense relationship move in some more interesting ways. one more thing i failed to mention on the semiconductor side, a recent agreement between general atomics and a company called third eye technologies in

india. it is a deal to manufacture military grade chips for the u.s. military. just to combine the defense line at the semiconductor line, moving some really interesting and exciting areas that were unthinkable 10 years ago. >> we are going to take a couple of questions in our last few minutes. if you have a question, go to one of the microphones. we will have time for a couple of short questions that should be questions, not statements. >> i was just adding to the point that there is a lot of confidence out of india. many people will be surprised right now, india's largest defense export is actually to the united states. all of these are small confidence cots and supply chain parts. >> any questions from the audience? if not, as a moderator i have a default question. there is one right here.

you can stand, speak clearly. i will repeat your question for everyone who can't hear. it will be a short, focused question. >> india has always been in terms of the value at the lower end -- the cost being low and the volumes -- -- in the united states and india, particularly these stretchy like a i, quantum, and other -- but in terms of the intelligence , where does the roadmap take if -- [indiscernible] the value added, or does it always remain as a low end partner? >> the question about the roadmap and advanced technologies for the comparative

contribution of the united states and india. if there is to be an actual partnership >> there isn't a single roadmap. and i will tell you why. the u.s. and india don't have a single technology strategy. forget about the other country, that is not how the u.s. or india functions. what we have seen with i set and now trust is a clear listing of the priority areas where both sides identify it. the closest thing i would appoint you to for a roadmap is the last few and trust under the new administration. what does it look like? it really depends on the technology. the most mature progress and most advanced progress has been made on semiconductors, 5g, extreme defense space and a little bit on biotech. in each of these areas, both sides have identified how we can add value.

on the semiconductor piece i was talking about, the u.s. companies came in because they had certain comparative advantages and india needed that. other areas where -- on fabs, the u.s. and india are struggling to reach different stages of development. but they are trying to -- at the same time. that is not an area where it is natural. space is another good example of some very good natural complementarity's that have been identified. two things are going to happen the next few months on the space front. we will have the first manned indian manned -- an indian going up to space for the first time in 40 years. first time on a u.s. spacecraft.

and the training has been in the u.s., nasa training. the artemis program. the second thing that will happen in june, you will have the most expensive earth observation satellites ever launched by the u.s. and india joint base and nasa. i would hesitate to say india is at the low end and u.s. is at the cutting edge, but both have been idea -- able to identify where there are those commonalities where they can move their agenda forward. a few areas where that has not happened yet it i think ai is one area. because the u.s. doesn't really have a.i. policy. in india it has been more difficult. the applications are so vast that -- quantum is also very difficult. two initiatives, u.s. quantum initiatives. but the fact is a lot of technology is not that commercially viable.

those are the success cases. i would say ai, quantum. one area that has not been explored is dpi. digital public input structure. india is very keen on internationalizing more. most u.s. companies don't really yet appreciate the value add of it. some areas where it has not worked out as well. >> i don't think there needs to be an absolute complement every time. what we are doing in the defense space is working on maritime awareness and high-altitude warfare. now what india brings to the table is operational efficiency. the u.s. can bring the tech, india can still bring its friends, which don't necessarily have to be in the tech space. u.s. generals are thinking about systems, how to fight them. indians know them, they fight them every day. the systems are built to be used against india. it is -- an equal relationship

doesn't have to be that. only to say technology, a plum entry, we are bring strengths in different ways. >> one of the broader themes is relevant to this question as we wrap here is specific collaborations and specific areas. ambitions together in specific areas. you talked about norms. i think one of the things behind what the biden team did and what the trump team is doing is to match both countries into similar technology ecosystems, similar ways of approaching technologies, similar kinds of collaboration. that is more relevant in some areas than others. autonomous weapons, the u.s. doesn't really know what it thinks. these conversations are very early. in other areas on 5g, on other questions, the u.s. has a defined view. coming into convergence about the norms of the standards on a lot of digital technologies.

this is becoming very specific to the u.s. and india convergence. both of you highlighted this in your own remarks on sectors and ambitions. we are out of time, which is good only because there are so many other great topics to address. if you would please join me in thanking my terrific panelists. [applause]

[applause] >> we will do a quick -- we are currently running about 30 minutes late. so we will have a keynote, which i can't wait to introduce to all of you. followed by another panel. and then we will break for a short refreshments break for about 15 minutes and reconvene for our next panels. just a little more patience from our side. it is an honor to introduce our next speaker, mr. yogendra yada v. they intellectual, political thinker, an advocate for democratic rights and ecological justice. in 2012 he was among the founders and went on to establish swaraj india.

he was involved with the movement against the citizen amendment act, which was an apex committee that guided the farmers protest in 2020-2021. he walked with -- is currently the national convene or. mr. yadav is here to ask a thought-provoking question to this audience. what kind of india do we seek? mr. yadav invites us to look beyond the narrow metrics of gdp and investment growth and towards a vision of india rooted in ecological with them cultural resilience, and participatory free democracy. he asked us to imagine a future where sustained ability takes precedence over speed and scale. with that introduction, let's please give a big round of applause to yogendra yadav. [applause]

>> thanks for the kind introduction. and thanks to the john hopkins india conference for this opportunity to speak on something that i don't normally get to speak about as a political activist. as a political activist working for the opposition in india, i must underline that very clearly. i mostly get to speak about things of the day and how to strategize, how to think of resistance. and i welcome this opportunity to talk a bit about what is deep politics. what i'm speaking today is also

politics. but a bit away from here and now , deeper politics that must guide our political action. my point today is a simple question to the reigning deity of our times, or may i call it the reigning superstition of our time. we call it modernity. and the superstition is this. that the present or the past of global north, developed world, advanced capitalist societies, call it by any name -- the superstition is the past or the present of societies gives us a

glimpse, gives us an image of the future of the rest of the world. this superstition guides so much of what we call expert knowledge. of what we call the stem. of what we call, of the plans everything embedded is in our thinking. and a political activist like me thinks there is something fundamentally wrong with this way of thinking about it. and hence my question, i question it and i call it a superstition. for the simple reason that actually if you look at the world with unblinking eyes, if we look at history, this has

never been the case. as a matter of fact, it has never been the case that societies that we call modern, advanced, that they led the same life. every historical study tells us that each of these countries which -- under the bucket of global north, had a very distinct trajectory. to assume that all of them had one single path which everyone else is likely or contend to repeat is based on a simple false assumption. it is also false because what we are trying to emulate is not the biography of these societies of the global north, it is the autobiography which is presented

to us and which we have except as the truth. trying to live someone else's life is bad. trying to live someone's autobiography is worse. because that actually never happens. this is what we are trying to in the name of what we call development, we call modernity. so it hasn't been the case. it will never be the case simply because modernity has an inbuilt and structural tendency, imperative, to diversify. because different elements of what we call modernity unfold themselves in distinct sequences. therefore, the life of modern

societies is bound to be -- bound to manifests itself in multigroup parts. and finally, i call it superstition because it is impossible for me to imagine that this life can be replicated anywhere else in the world. any time i come from india to the u.s., i look at the number of cars, i look at the air-conditioners, i look at the large houses. i do not resent that. don't get me wrong. i don't envy people with very large houses. i do wonder if those houses and those cars and this much fuel can actually ever be made available to 7 billion people who live on this earth. or do we need to colonize a few

more earth's, a few more planets for that? just as a certain kind of colonialism has made this world be what it is today. so it never happened, it will never happen, it should never be tried. that is why i call it superstition. therefore to my mind, there is just no other option except to think on our feet. thinking is one thing which will never be sublet. many other things should be farmed out. thinking is something that should not normally be farmed out. we have to ask some big questions of our own. what does our future look like? what should it look like? if we can shape it heard what kind of india do we want to seek ? can we dream of something beyond the dream of a modern, developed superpower with cutting-edge technology, and extra really and are economy?

phrases which i used in my parliament, phrases used by my prime minister. when i see my prime ministers say our dream is to become a developed country -- i cringe. after 70 years, you cannot change that reality. but if it is 70 years you cannot change your dream, that is awful. can we dream of something beyond a mirage that we have been chasing breathless and mindlessly? is another world possible? that is a question i invite you to think. instead of thinking about an abstraction, allow me to spend five minutes on thinking on one concrete issue. namely that of indian agriculture, something i have been associated with. i'm not a farmer, i don't claim

to be one. i have been involved in farmers movement. and in that famous farmers protest that took place in india. for 13 months the national capital was surrounded by 100,000 farmers. i had the arner to be on the committee of that protest. it is those kind of expenses i draw and ask a question. the question is about the future of indian farming. the fact is indian agriculture was in no good shape. even before the great protest of the farmers. indian agriculture faces an economic, ecological, and existential crisis. indian agriculture desperately needs a reform. it is at a dead-end. but reforms not of the kind that have been thrust upon the farmers. we need reforms of the kind the farmers need and want.

so every indian once indian agriculture to reform. every politician once indian agriculture to reform. no one is willing to entertain the suspicion that farmers may have some sense of what he wished to reform about different things i need to tell farmers about how they need to reform. so let's think about how indian agriculture could be remote -- reformed. the way farmers need it and the way the farmers want it. farmers are indeed open to learning and change provided to see the benefits. the future of indian farming cannot be the past of european or north american farmers. the dominant language in the indian policy establishment is you want to help the farmers. and as someone put it crassly, the best way to help the farmers is to help them cease to be farmers. this is the dominant understanding that defines much

of indian planning. help the farmers quit farming, that is the best way to help. you must give up on the fall stream of extending green revolution, paradigm to the entire country. so these are the dominant fantasies of our policy establishment. that one day india would have 5% people who do farming as it happens in europe or in america. one day we would have corporations that would take over the production going up, be a developed nation. a part of those fantasies is called green revolution for the rest of the country. replicating high input water guzzling agriculture to our country is both impossible and undesirable. small farm size is here to stay. at which holding in india, --

agriculture and allied activities will continue to engage about 2/5 of our workforce. currently they engage about half of our workforce. since no alternative avenues of employment around her, what most policy analysts forget is there is no industry growing, waiting to absorb the people who would live farming. there is nothing of that kind. it is only unemployment and urban slugs waiting for farmers who leave their villages. most indian farmers don't have much capital to invest. it cannot be extended to the entire agriculture. true solution for india must be based on these real-life conditions. at the same time, we cannot simply go back to traditional agriculture. that never faced the challenge of producing adequate for 1.4

billion people. we have inherited it based on practices. it needs to be filtered and adapted to modern science. markets including international markets are here to stay. so is the need to keep food inexpensive for large segments outside of the farming sector. hence the state must step in to create infrastructure for production and storage to subsidize farmers in order to keep food affordable. and to regulate domestic and international markets. so neither of these two things -- one is to replicate the journey of europe and america, or to go back to our golden era of traditional indian agriculture. and my simple point is modernity

is all about looking ahead. creating something specific to your need. what made european modernity at a certain moment such a great achievement of human history was it refused to look back, it refused to look aside. it was willing to think of absolutely new solutions to situations which are unprecedented in human history. what indian agriculture faces is something similar. so which we have to come up with new solutions. the future of indian agriculture lies in following an indian path designed for our ecological conditions, our limited resources with very little capital, and contemporary needs. this involves pursuing three goals simultaneously. i call this -- this ecology in

it, normative it in it, and the smart russian economics part of it. making agriculture economically viable for the farmers, shifting to ecological agriculture sustainable for the farmers and consumers, and ensuring social justice for marginal sections of the farming and non-farming communities. all of these three objectives need to be pursued simultaneously if we think hard about indian culture. first, the challenge of ensuring the farmers. the key reform would involve legal entitlement to -- i will not bore you with the technicality of it. but the idea involves the state stepping in to ensure, to give a legal guarantee of a flawed,

fair price. this is what the farmers have been demanding. this does not require the government to purchase all of the. we need an extended procurement, intelligently designed payment systems, timely and selective markets and trading of international trade policies which is very critical in the light of what is going to happen in the next two or three months. because india is going to sign a trade agreement with the u.s. where the interest of the farmers could be bartered over, that is the major challenge. farm activists have insisted markets need multiple reforms. we need more local markets, more players the existing -- improvement in the warehouse receipt systems, and direct access to farmers from consumers. the political pressure generated by farmers must translate into a higher government spending on agriculture. that is the bit about ensuring

higher incomes to the farmers. about 10 years ago, promised doubling of income of our farmers. great announcement, enormous publicity, that only this government can bring about. and every farmer was assured within six years, your income would be doubled. six years, i heard nothing except doubling of income. when that six the year was over, i heard nothing about it. not even an explanation to say this much was achieved and this is meant to be achieved. income increase is one. second, the issue of social justice. we need to the issue of social justice that have been languishing. while the addition of land has -- in 1950's. still to offer homestead land

and parcels of uncultivated land to the families. confirming one striven to farmers -- farmers need the forest right act, 2006 to be implemented which gives indigenous people some right over forest land. while securing prices for the minor forest produce. all women farmers need coownership, the priority for any farmer is some kind of identification paper that entitles them to all benefits of government schemes without threatening the landowners of disposition. marginal farmers need a huge national effort to create and incentivize cooperatives so that they secure cheaper better market prices. all of these are about ways to have a more just space and agriculture for those who truly cultivate. 70% of the labor is done by

women in agriculture. and it is only men like me that you see exposing the cause of the farmers. the third issue is of ecological sustainability, this issue cannot be postponed anymore. but the end of the green revolution, the offset of the challenge of climate change. we simply cannot persist with the model of agriculture that leads to depletion of water, degradation of soil, indebtedness of farmers, and toxic food for the consumers. everyone is losing out in this particular game. we must shift to low external approaches that can go nutritious and non-toxic food for everyone. crop diversification for the already existing knowledge of the crop selection. based on diversity with farming, mixed cropping, and crops set

the rotation. instead of working on chemical fertilizers, we must shift and creating a microclimate for soy regeneration. plant protection and best management must shift away from synthetic pesticides. irrigation needs to move and flood irrigation. the small projects focus on efficient use of water and moisture. scene selection must shift to farmer-controlled varieties. just to give you a glimpse of the kind of alternative i have been talking about. an alternative we need to think about in every single sector some kind of depth. creating our own unique modernity, based on our conditions, constraints, resources. it is not just about india. it applies to everyone. that is exactly what countries

that call themselves modern and developed did 200 or 300 years ago. you might ask or all of these alternatives to modern development? can they take on the challenge of scale and survive in the face of giant corporations and globalized market economy? does the practice of majority with democracy leave any room for concerns of future generations in nature? these are valid questions. but you must also ask a valid question to counterweight that. can we really ever hope to offer every indian the lifestyle available to everyone in the global north? is this model worth replicating? can we afford to go on with the destruction of nature, lives, and livelihoods? which is what we have done. once we recognize the invariable weight of -- unbearable weight of questions of how we have gone about destruction in the name of

development, the quest for alternatives does not remain an obsession of a minority. once we realize alternatives are not about going back our past, but about imagining and shaping our future. this becomes a collective search. how do we make these alternatives visible? what is the roadmap of transition from where we are to where we wish to go? someone has to begin thinking about these questions. someone has to risk being called mad and income alternatives before we are left with nothing to think about. thank you. [applause] and just in case someone wants to get back or respond to the things we do, my email id is whatever you imagine it to be, gmail.com. thank you.

>> thank you so much. please accept this small token. [applause] please keep it going for that powerful thought-provoking keynote from mr. yogendra yadav. we now transition to a conversation that builds on this very theme and tries to reimagine our economic future through the lens of inclusion and dignity. a world grappling with inequality, formalization, limits. it will explore bold people centered alternatives for development models. a session chair, we are honored to have the professor of sociology at johns hopkins university. joining her are three absolutely

extraordinary leaders who have championed inclusive economic development from the ground up and the top-down. we have the director of the self-employed women's association of india, she is a real legend in the fields of peace. kathy feingold, the international director and deputy president of the international trade union confederation. and we have the lead economist at the world bank's development research group. thank you, looking forward to a great session. >> thank you so much and welcome to our final opening plenary. it is my honor and pleasure to introduce it today. we are going to continue on the theme of alternatives and move our gaze from geopolitics to

inclusive development on the ground. as we all know, us academics have spent years, decades since the 1950's working with development institutions and government bodies on reducing poverty and improving or growing our economies. and despite the strides we have made in health care and technology and income, we've also had many failures. we still see basic malnutrition, we still see an expansion before the rich and the poor. so it is not surprising our development efforts are being so heavily critiqued by the left and the right. and clearly we need a development model that is an alternative to the one we have been using all these years.

and on this panel today, we will speak about such alternative called the economy of nurturance. broadly speaking, the economy of nurturance turns our attention away from income poverty or gdp growth to also look at connections and covert asian ships -- co-relationships with our families and environments. and instead of four specific areas instead of nurturance is nurturing our daily life. second is nurturing our earth. third is nurturing the human mind through knowledge.

and mostly, the economy of nurturance is not some idealistic fantasy or some esoteric academic theory. it is in operation growing and evolving in india since 1972 when -- first articulated the concept and founded a collective action organization called the self-employed women's association. sewa is a remarkable and empowered union of 3 million women workers who have been practicing for the economy of nurturance. it is also an organization very dear to my heart because i worked there after college. and it is something that really did change my life.

sewa really taught me everything i know. sewa has a lot to teach all of us to care about development and collective futures. with that i want to turn it over to our speakers, each of our speakers will speak for about eight to 10 minutes and we will turn it over to a question and discussion format. our first speaker is reema nanavaty. [applause] >> good evening. i have lost track of time. but i speak here on behalf of our 3.2 million members, all women workers in the informal economy in our country. 93% of the workforce is in the informal sector, and at sewa we believe we are the mainstream. it is the 7% formal sector which needs to partner with the 93% of

the informal sector. but i think as -- also mentioned, why there is the need for this alternative model, or economic model of development. i think this entire concept has emerged or is questioned by the poor women workers and members of sewa. and yet remain excluded. by the direction in which today's civilization is moving towards greater violence, greater inequities, towards an economy based on erosion of natural resources. we also know that today worldwide progress is measured as growth in gdp. growth or how modern science and technology has evolved and how the production systems have

evolved, and how the lifestyle is progressing in the countries. the world encourages us to be exploitative in growth. but progress is the conduct that leads men to the path of his duty. as ghandi said, the economic, social political systems should move for better relationships and build collective strength at the community level. this has resulted into a threefold crisis which our members have been experiencing as i speak now today. rising poverty despite abundance. rise of intolerance, hatred, and violence, and environmental catastrophe. i would really request all of you to join towards the end of the banner in praying for the villagers in our country who are

at the border, who are really facing the wrath of all of the attack that is going on between the two neighboring countries. but i would come back to the new economic alternative, the new economic model needed. i think the result is also that finance has become an instrument of growth. we have been hearing in the earlier panels on the industrial development of the bilateral trade agreements, on defense, on ai, and i was thinking where are we going? where are the people in all of this that we are discussing. today, finance has become an independent structure. detached from the real world. money is a tool to make more money and more money. all tools must serve humanity and not the other way, which we

are experiencing right now. i may sound very different to the economists and industrialists and businesspeople sitting here. but therefore, i think they need for building an economy of nurturance which is a transformative idea rooted in five decades of experience. of the leadership of women workers in the informal economy. 3.2 million sewa members. it challenges the mainstream economic paradigm. just let me know if i'm overshooting my time. and an alternative path which is centered around care, sustainability, and equity. as rina also mentioned, building an economy of nurturance is about how women and individual

family and community level play an important role in creating a collective capital with potential of sustaining meaningful growth. therefore, i think the model prioritizes caring and sharing or requiring and accumulating, optimizing over maximizing sustainability both on social, ecological, and financial overshot of profit. service in cooperation over competition. your resources, the technology, and institutions to end poverty and equality. emphasizing using these to benefit all species and not just humans alone. the model works on women's leadership in finance, particularly grassroots finance.

like cooperative banks, the self-help groups in countries like india and in other countries as they embody, nurture, treat in financial behavior. trust responsibility, mutual support. the model also links integrated financial services. savings, credit, insurance, pension, and financial literacy. to meet both livelihood and live needs health education, and emergencies that may come up. it also promotes decentralized democratic systems. women are not just only beneficiaries, but owners, managers, and users of financial institutions. and this leads to creating collective capital and community oriented economic base. i think our five decades of experience has brought about

several such examples which i've gone to scale. the first ever cooperative, it is a cooperative bank governed by the federal bank of india. likewise, we have an agribusiness initiative which connects around 254,000 small and marginal farmers. and where no farmer should go hungry. why does a farmer remain hungry? and very often what the farmers grow, they do not eat. what they eat, they do not grow. but we try to break despite the decentralized supply chain. we have women owned energy initiatives, women-owned data centers as well. so i think this is what building of 8 -- economy of nurturance which is an alternative economic model. and i think when the world is going through turmoil, where we see a lot of animosity and

hatred, it is time we all come together to discuss this alternative economic model. thank you. >> thank you so much. what an honor to be on this panel. thank you for anchoring us and the economy of nurturance. i represent the 50 million unionized workers in the u.s. as well as the 200 million union workers around the world, proud to have sewa as one of our affiliates pushing us to go include these issues in our conversation and analysis. i cannot think of a better moment in this country to be talking about nurturance. we are at a time of rupture, since world war ii, we have the rupture due to technology, climate, demographics. there is a whole list of reasons we are in this moment of rupture. and for a lot of us, there has been a lot of turmoil in this country.

but as turmoil, i think comes opportunity about transformation. i want to focus on the work we need to do to think about transforming our economic model, which has not been working for workers. i have been thinking about how to translate this important economic interest the movement is doing. a little bit about how i have been thinking about it. always think about economic models answering the questions. does it improve the lives of working people, yes or no? that is often not a question asked by an economist. is it good for the environment? again, these seem like basic questions. when you center those questions, you start looking for different answers and you center it in exactly the workers we heard reema talk about, or workers in the u.s. we know when we talk about economic models, it is not random. it is about concrete policy

decisions to get us to this different economic model. we often take economics for granted, it just is. we don't have any power to shape it. let us see this as a time to be transformative area not thinking about rebuilding. we have seen a lot of debates about how we rebuild, very binary. if not this model, we go back to the old model. but we have an opportunity to be transformative. so i want to center unions, many people probably don't role know the role of unions in this conversation. we see unions as being on the front lines of democracy. often the first place people experience democracy. either things are good in the workplace or not. they decide would like to change their situation. and they think one person alone cannot really just change and sing i work better, i deserve a better salary or working conditions. it is about the first time they think collective action is what i need to work with my colleagues in the workplace,

vote for a leader, and that is democracy. the first time many people in our country vote. unions are really the entree for many people to experience real grassroots democracy. i think that is very important. given this experience with democracy, they are usually on the front lines of shaping the economics of their workplace. what kind of wages and social protection, how will technology be integrated? we have examples of negotiations between unions and employers about how technology gets implement it. unions are often the first place people experience shaping economic and social policies and real-time that really impact their lives. unions play a critical role in thinking about the economic model we need today fit for purpose that can address the challenges we are facing, huge inequalities, and technology changing very quickly replacing workers.

what is it that we need? the other important issue that unions represent is they are self-sustaining. so they can express their opinions as they would like. they can talk about alternative economics without fear of retribution. that is a really important point compared to other organizations. they are self-sustaining so they can talk about what is a transformative economic model that works for working people. i want to talk about what it might look like to have the economy and nurturance you are talking about for working people. the first is we would definitely agree about the need for increasing investment in the care economy green economy, and infrastructure. we are not hearing that debated around the world. we hear about a growing agenda of the regulation. we hosted the international monetary fund and world bank meeting sprayed the main agenda was growth and deregulation. in a return some people were

talking about austerity, which means cutting these kinds of important investments in the care economy and the green transition. the global labor movement has done research investing 1% of gdp in the care economy over five years would yield an average gdp increase of more than 11% as well as a 6.3% increase until the employment levels. we know what different investments would look like. so let me look at how i might translate this economy of nurturance into this agenda for the labor movement. pillar one, you talk about a nurturing daily life. working people, everyone, all communities need health care, food, shelter. what would we ask for? full employment and living wages for all workers. that needs to be a policy target of economies in countries when you say expand, policy interventions aimed at guaranteed programs. we need to foster the care economy. labor rights, trade freedoms, if

you can organize and speak out about what is happening in your workplace that affects you directly, your economic situation, we can't really change that economic situation. so you need to have your fundamental rights. and we need universal social protection. we need health care. i know we have some innovative parametric insurance type of expansive aching about what kind of social protection we need. tiller two, talk the labor movement would talk about climate justice. we need to reform energy through lingering investments. we need to focus on the clean energy transition that is just, puts workers, governments, and employers are the table to negotiate these issues. the third pillar, nurturing human minds through tech and knowledge. we need technological governance for people, not profit.

ai and technology can support working people. we have seen it integrated in a way that helps working people and the environment, but it is about policy choices and we need to make those policy choices. nurturing the human mind, i think about the right to a public education that gives you the analytical and vocational skills you need to live a life of dignity. lastly, the one i think about a lot, four, nurturing investments and finances to nurture the next generation. we are stuck in a model of short-termism. we think about today. what can i game? we need to think about future generations. what is the labor movement thinking about to get to the last pillar? packs justice and fair share economics -- tax justice and fair shot economics. we need progressive taxation. we need to re-regulate finance for the real economy. we need debt relief. countries are saying they are not able to invest in social

protection, health care, education, and clean energy transition because they are stuck financing debt. we need immediate debt relief and economic sovereignty. we need trade rules and equitable development. there is a lot we can unpack about trades. we need democratic multilateralism and global solidarity. we need to rethink the multilateralism we need that is fit for purpose that brings us together that will allow us to move this kind of transformative economic model. i see a lot of ways the labor movement can build this transformative model and we look forward to working with all of you to get there. thank you. [applause] >> um. let me first say where i come from. i work at the world bank research department. i have done so for 26 years.

what i want to talk about his nurturance on the model and ask how we can make that work in the real world. what does it teach us about how we do policy? the first thing i want to say is that people like me, like us, people who work in large universities, large multilateral donor agencies, we should recognize ourselves as part of the problem in the following sense. when we do policy and research for policy, think about it very carefully. whatever may be motivating us and why we might have entered the profession in the first place, we are entering a model of career, a career track, tenure-track, assistant professor in a social science department, you have to publish the top journals. you have to be smarter than

everybody else. you have to be more visible than everybody else. you have to appear smart, talk smart. you have to show that you are smart. that is the nature of the game. that gets translated into policy where whatever your political persuasion, your smartness is what determines what the current administration is going to implement. do you see what i am saying? you are manipulating the leaders of government because your smartness is telling you how to change the world. everybody wants to be a changemaker. when you want to be a changemaker of that kind, you reach that point via three paradigms of policy making. where government stays out, manipulate taxation and expenditures in ways that make

people better off. we will tell you because we are so smart what you need to do to make the world better off and government will follow that. for the third, the last 15 years , the paternalistic model. we know better than them what is good for them. we will run experiments and shove them in certain ways where they will be better off even if they do not know they are better off. we have done randomized controlled trials borrowing from public help on things that should not be randomized. what is the end result of all of that? the people we are supposed to be helping, our so-called beneficiaries, have no voice in all of this. they are having things done to them rather than having control over their own lives. the economy of nurturance to me, i don't care what your

political persuasion is, in fact, i would argue the reduction in support for democracy around the world is because of this model of policymaking. people have things done to them rather than people participating in things that affect their own lives. how do we create a system where ordinary human beings, whoever they may be, including you and me, have a greater say in things that affect our lives? that comes to a very conservative principal. power over policy should be located in such a way so that you give as much power as possible to the level at which it makes the most sense to do so. in other words, education should be decentralized. management should be decentralized to the local level. people should be participating

actively in things they know something about. i do not mean a local village should be running a vaccination campaign. that should be left to the central government, the federal government. but in asking, has somebody been vaccinated or not, that kind of local knowledge has to be decentralized. why is such an obvious principle not accepted as something you should do? organizations are seen as boutique, cute, they do that kind of work, that is ok. interestingly, that model was nurtured within indian notions of what it is to be a community, what it is to deal with collective action and has had a huge impact. you could argue it now affects 100 million women all over india was inspired deeply by sabre.

it is across the country. the 17th amendment to the indian constitution is a document that gives constitutional power to the simple idea every indian villager should have a village council they can work with. they should have access to deliberative spaces on a regular basis so they can confront elected officials and have a say over basic things like who gets a scholarship in my village, who gets access to a poverty benefit. poverty is generally determined through what is called the proxy means test. if you make less than some out of money a day, you are poor and we will give you benefits. it makes no sense. we have documented this.

people who seem to be above the line are desperately poor. a lot of people who seem desperately poor do not deserve the money at all. discussed with the local community who is deserving of the particular benefit in question whether the metric makes sense. bring power of local knowledge to bear in making policy better. have people participate. it is a better model. why is this not a dominant paradigm? why is the only dominant paradigm the nudging, i have run rtc's myself, i don't have anything against technique. but the culture around it, the idea that policies are simple and should be scalable, why can't it be scalable?

it has gone to 100 million. it is documented. we have all the data. it requires corporate production with a spirit of self criticality, humility, not knowing that you know the answers but co-producing the answers with the folks that you are trying to help so they are part of the process. not to think because i went to hopkins or harvard, we are somehow smarter than everybody else. that is a more reflexive form of policymaking, which i love, the idea we are not better than you. we may be more powerful then you but we are going to use our power to create an economy of nurturance, where everybody dissipates in making them better off while we take care of other things with it is a division of labor, division of power, allocation of power according to

where it fits the best. that is how you scale up the economy of nurturance. it has been shown to have been done by successive indian governments. yet it is somehow seen as not being one of the standard paradigms, something separate, something boutique, something cute. lefties do it. let's rethink how we do policy. for many of your students in public health, look at it and learn from it about how you can bring those ideas into your own labs with all the wonderful training you have and how you make your research more reflexive so it is not just publishing papers and making professors happy but to directly benefit people. give them a say in how the research is done and what they do with the research. not just published in a journal. thank you. [applause]

>> 10 minutes? i am going to ask a couple of questions and then i would love to open the floor if anyone has questions to come to the mics. since you have been operating the all these years, elaborate more on what it means to build it from the ground up. what are the key challenges we have to be forewarned about? how should we begin? >> sure. i really liked what cathy and vijay said. this is a model that has come about. it is not a conceptual model. i think it has grown out of our five decades of experience. the fundamentals are that the focus is on care,

sustainability, and equity. it is a bottom-up, decentralized model where we have number-based -- member-based organizations. members do not just remain workers or producers but they are owners, managers, and users of the organizations. the value measured is an well-being, resilience, and collective growth. i think it is protective of nature, people, and future generations. i think the best part of it is the feminine traits. we believe in coke creation and consensusbuilding. i think what we all need to understand is it means investment of time and resources. this economy of nurturance, if

we really are thinking about it, it is a process where organizing is the key. the other message i bring from our members is poverty is also a form of violence with the consent of the society. if we really want to remove poverty, why there is a need for this model for so many years and yet poverty persists and is growing. therefore, the need for such an alternative development model is needed. where i think we co-create policies, that is where organizing plays a big role. organizing is a process. i think organizing is also one of the surest ways to fight poverty. that is what i think of the messages. >> fantastic. the point they have made about

the power of organizing and health fundamental it is to transformation and development and is often left out of so-called policy discussions. turning to you, cathy, you mentioned this question of scale. because of your global expertise, how would we create a financial system at the national level or global level that could support an economy of nurturance? would it look different in the u.s. versus india, or are we trying to create some transnational financial system? >> thanks so much. we would need a lot more time to talk about a new financial architecture which is needed. i do not think we have a system fit for purpose for the current moment. i do think it is bottom-up. it goes back to questions i said we need to center in any conversation on policymaking. is it going to help?

yes or no? the policy i'm thinking about, is it going to improve someone's life or someone's phd prospects? i think we want to make sure that question is centered in the environmental question is centered. we need to totally re-create the metrics by which we measure progress and what is considered growth. the problem of gdp is a common metric. it will never get us to the economy of nurturance. it fails to capture how economic growth is distributed. we need to talk about power relations. that is why organizing is so important. you cannot change power imbalances without having collective power that pushes back. that is what fundamental -- is fundamental. that is what sewa has done. it fails to capture information about the well-being of workers. are they healthy? how is climate impacting their health?

i know people here are working on that issue. we need a different metric upon which our financial system is resting. right now, as you were explaining, it is resting on a whole other set of principles and individual interests. sometimes it is just about personal interests. it is not bottom up. we need a different framework. we are about to have a debate in our own country about priorities with the budget discussion and at the global level as there is a challenge to the multilateral system. many people are grieving the insecurity and instability we are feeling. instead, we should be having more conversations about how we can take advantage of this moment to ground ourselves in bottom-up different approaches and have a well-being and nurturance metric that measures progress and drives investment. >> fantastic. i think what is so interesting is underlying these question-oriented approaches to

development is in many ways a moral framework, a sort of moral reorientation towards connectivity, towards peace, towards security. but , we are living in this world as all of us have heard over and over that is the opposite. it is insecure, polarized, and violent. i wonder if you could tell us a bit about how we create this reflexive approach or the economy of nurturance in this current climate and specifically, are there institutions you have hope in? forget the development institutions, government, private sector, is it religious organizations? we have unions. what are the institutions that can lead a new moral framework? >> thanks for the question.

let's stick with india. we have the 17th amendment to the indian constitution which gives us the model on how we can create decentralized government. that is a hybrid system of democracy. it is treated as a stepson child of everything else -- it is treated as a stepchild of everything else. that is mad. nurturing the economy of nurturance. how do we bring these magnificent men and women into political power? how do we make that happen? it can be truly transformative. the third thing is the power of technology. we think of technology as being part of the surveillance capital which is true. but if we are going to start under being well-being in a

holistic way, what could be better instead of bugging people with surveys of how much rice you had last week, why don't we have conversations with people on how they are doing like friends do? have interactive conversations with tens of thousands of people. it is possible. take all of the data at the end and create a metric of well-being that is reflective of the bottom. technology will let you do that now. >> i know time is not on our side. i do want to, before we think this incredible panel and all of our incredible speakers, i do want to, in conclusion, invite you to come and see a beautiful and multimedia exhibit that has been traveling across the country and is on its way to travel internationally.

we have the amazing opportunity to have it with us at hopkins on the eighth and the night floor today and tomorrow -- the knights floor today and tomorrow. the exhibit was made by sewa members as well as harvard students. it chronicles how an economy of nurturance enabled sewa members to handle the 2019 covid pandemic. dr. balsari, associate professor of emergency medicine at harvard university, and the others are the architects of this exhibit. they are going to be holding tours throughout the conference of the exhibit. the first tour is just after this plenary.

please grab a cup of tea, come up to the eighth floor and please see this beautiful exhibit and witness in picture and through the words of sewa members how an economy of nurturance has carried millions and millions of people through crises such as a covid pandemic. please join me in thanking this incredible group of speakers. [applause] i hope you are -- yes! >> sorry. we always end with a song. since this is an india summit as well, this is a song which comes from our members. i will sing it in our hindi language. i'm sure those who do not follow hindi would also follow this song. [singing in hindi]

thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. please keep it going for this incredible panel. [applause] please accept some small tokens of appreciation. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, we will

take a very short break. we will reconvene at 6:15 an hour breakout rooms. he quickly, -- very quickly, on the eighth floor, we have two panels. the first is on india's cancer challenge. in 940, we have the global food systems and policy actions for india-u.s. collaborations on climate and health. please feel free to refer to the agenda. please get sufficiently caffeinated in the short break and we will see you with renewed vigor and energy on the eighth or the ninth floors. see you soon. >> democracy. it is not just idea. it is a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to us like you with guarding its basic principles. it is where debates unfold,

decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span. giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> retired supreme court justice david souter has died. he was appointed to the high court by george h.w. bush in 1990. the associated press writing that he became a darling of liberals during his nearly 20 years on the bench. qsr reliably liberal vote on abortion, church-state relations, and accessibility of federal courts. in retirement, he warned that ignorance of how government works could undermine american democracy. retired supreme court justice david souter died at his home in new hampshire yesterday at the age of 85. ♪

>> american history tv saturdays on c-span [applause] -- on c-span2. this weekend, a discussion on the history of the civil service and government workers with history professors from georgetown university, roosevelt university, and the university of richmond. at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history, a look at native americans and the american revolution with a two lane professor -- with the tulane university professor. and at 9:30 eastern, here the story of a popular washington, d.c. dressmaker and former slave who was a confidant of first lady mary todd lincoln. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a